Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackmailer Paradox

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I can't see that any of the Keep rationales address the WP:COATRACK and notability issues brought up elsewhere. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blackmailer Paradox[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A terrible WP:Coatrack for a particular WP:POV about the Israeli-Arab conflict, masked as an article about mathematics. Remove the overly large quote and the politics, and there will be only one line left stating the paradox' existence. Pgallert (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article received severe criticism at WP:TDYK today and was quickly removed from the suggestion page by an anonymous user. --Pgallert (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was the one who reviewed the article for T:TDYK, giving it "severe criticism" and a 'no' answer. I think the article should exist, but not in its current form. I think it should be pared of pro-Israel political POV and given a wider scope. The paradox should be related to multiple scenarios, not just Israelis and others staring each other down at the bargaining table. Some observers say that Turkey is using the Blackmailer's paradox; this should be mentioned. The repeated game theory breaks down in politics in cases where one key person has a term of office in which he feels he must achieve greatness or fade from history—that person will not easily leave the room empty-handed—he plays as if there is only one game, not repeated games. Other bargaining theories should be compared to the article topic: Pareto efficiency, Trembling hand perfect equilibrium, Selten's subgame perfect equilibrium, etc. Binksternet (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Binksternet: obviously notable maths theorem, but needs extensive copyedting. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nominator is completely correct on this one-- it's a coatrack masquerading as an article about mathematics. The Arabs are the blackmailers in this charming little story, while the Israelis are the victims. Yeah, no POV here. Coming next, "Ali Baba and the square root of 1600 thieves". Mandsford 00:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I and other editors have worked on cleaning up the article and making it more focused on game theory. That the subject is notable and backed by reliable and verifiable sources is clear. The need for cleanup is not a valid rationalization for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to disparage you, but I am a bit... underwhelmed by your "cleaning up and making it more focused on game theory": some spelling, some wikilinking... Good copyediting, but hardly issuing the very real content issues raised by BinkSternet, Mandsford, and Pgallert. Same goes for user:Cobaltcigs' edit:[1]: paragraph formatting and stuff, but no content change. ^walk victor falk^talk 23:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Case:A wikipedia editor finds himself in a virtual room with an article by a winner of the Nobel Prize in economics noted for his work in game theory. In the article the Nobel prize winner describes a mathematical paradox. Discovering reliable secondary sources that portray the described paradox as notable albeit new, the editor creates an article. When sources appear giving other examples of the blackmailer paradox, they can certainly be included in this article. However, at the moment the sole published formal example, written up by a Nobel prize laureate, happens to be about Israel. Deleting the article on that grounds seems to me to amount to nothing more than WP:I don't like it.AMuseo (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having a gold medal with Nobel's picture does not make every single word coming out of your mouth scientifically valid, much less wikinotable ^walk victor falk^talk 23:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not a scientifically established topic in game theory: Zero google scholar hit. Googling "blackmailer paradox" "game theory " -wikipedia -israel -arabyields 15 non-relevant hits. The 1 google book hit ("Inside the Economist's Mind: Conversations with Eminent Economists") is an interview with Arumann by Sergiu Hart about how he was brainstorming in a seminar and came up with a thought; I'd like people to read pages 386 and 387, from "Arumann: One of them was the blackmailer's paradox[...]"[2][3]. This one and a half page, my fellow wikipedians, is the sum total of the whole world's academical cogitations on the blackmailer's paradox, independent of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Pretty weak sauce to make a game theory dish. ^walk victor falk^talk 23:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^walk victor falk^talk 00:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is only one source for this concept, an opinion column by its inventor, and since multiple independent sources are required, the concept is not notable. Abductive (reasoning) 01:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.