Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bankruptcy problem


 * 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   keep. Nomination withdrawn j⚛e deckertalk 15:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Bankruptcy problem

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable article that reads like WP:OR or as an essay.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note I've place a notice for this discussion at the game theory wikiproject. --Mark viking (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment From a cursory search it looks like bankruptcy problems in general are certainly a noted form of bargaining problem, but I'm seeing very fe resources that are saying "the bankruptcy problem" rather than "a bankruptcy problem", which makes me think that bankruptcy problems are a class of problems like Coordination games, not a specific problem like Guess 2/3 of the average or the Prisoner's dilemma - both of which are specific well-known incarnations illustrating a class of games. If the article is kept, it should probably be reformatted appropriately. I'll wait for more information before !voting, though. 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 20:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * My first impression is to doubt that this is original research. As for the notice at the game theore wikiproject, it looks as if maybe somebody looks at that page at least once every twenty years. 2001:558:6014:1C:59C9:BC1E:77E6:F1AD (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment It does very much sound like a typical problem in game theory. There seem to be enough articles to initially doubt the assertion of non-notability. In my opinion, it does not at all read as original research. In fact, it may well suffer from the opposite problem of being too close to a existing source, namely . -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Looking into this more, this topic is a well-known game-theoretic problem from the Talmud. A GScholar search for "Bankruptcy problem" talmud yields 751 hits, with every paper on the first page of hits being about the game theoretic aspect of the problem; this looks like a promising survey of the field. Likewise, "Bankruptcy problem" game theory gets about 1,090 GScholar hits. There are more than enough sources to make this a notable topic and on which to base an article. The article itself seems fine as a stub, but of course could be improved. I'll note that Entitlement (fair division) is on the more general topic, but discusses the game-theoretic aspects, too. A notable topic and an article with no major problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Good enough for me - nom withdrawn. Thanks Mark.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not distinguishing between "the bankruptcy problem" and "a bankruptcy problem", which would be a class of problems and quite possibly a subclass of bargaining problems, as I pointed out earlier. Note that in the survey article, it refers to them as "bankruptcy problems". I don't particularly object to the article being here, but we should at the very least tag it with Expert-subject, because I think that someone who has already heard of this before (and they should be out there, if this is notable) should have a sense of how it fits into the larger literature. 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 14:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * An expert tag is a good idea. I was hoping to draw some experts from the game theory WikiProject, but it seems moribund. --Mark viking (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.