Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deal or No Deal game strategy


 * 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 Transwiki'd to WikiBooks. Tawker 22:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Deal or No Deal game strategy

 * — (View AfD)

This belongs on a gameshow Wiki, not here. Encyclopedia: not a guide on strategy to a recent hit game show. I see no other strategy guides like this for Wheel of Fortune or Price is Right and so on, for good reason: it's cruft and not needed. Or video game guides as a similar example: not here because Wikipedia isn't a game guide. This recent hit show shouldn't be any exception. RobJ1981 01:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I think its notable enough for inclusion based on the connection to game theory and utility theory. JPotter 01:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. editconflict It might not be too encyclopedic, but damn it's interesting! -- Chris is  me 01:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. My idea of a strategy guide is something whose purpose is to tell you how to win. I don't see that here; instead, I see an unbiased examination of the game and an explanation of how various people have analyzed the game. Stilgar135 01:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * comment It seems to me that this would be best merged into Deal or No Deal. Why does this aspect of the show need its own article?--Dmz5 02:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete most of this article is original research (at least until better sourcing is provided for the modeling section and comparison to the monty hall problem) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Unencyclopedic with original research problems (the very limited academic references cited relate to a study of the gameshow in "Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands", but the bulk of the article relates to the US version of the gameshow, suggesting OR speculation or analysis based on unreliable/non-authoritative sources (the forum/geocities links in external links section). Media coverage (the WSJ carries at least one "human interest" or "funny-strange science" story on its front page every day) of limited academic studies is not sufficient to prove encyclopedic notability. Wikipedia is not a webhost for every single research paper out there, be it original research or published work. In contrast, the Monty Hall problem has many more authoritative sources and references, indicating a far greater degree of circulation Bwithh 02:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Those two links you complained about were left overs from the far inferior "how should one play Deal or Deal" article that this once was. However, the article has evolved past that, and has been much improved. Caerwine Caer’s whines  03:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The format is international; Postet al ' s papers explicitly state that the same formal structure is used in each version. Eludium-q36 21:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Analysis of how the game is played has attracted both scholarly and press attraction, as noted and referenced in the article. It may not have the volume of scholarly attention that Monty Hall has received, but that is due to the facts that it hasn't been around as long and it involved more complicated mathematics than the simple Monty Hall problem. This article is still in need of improvement, but it is a far cry from what it once was, which was more like a guide to playing the game.  The modeling section is in need of being improved, preferably by someone who is very familiar with utility theory and thus well suited to integrating the appropriate external references into the article.  The comparison with Monty Hall is about as good as its going to get, and it limits itself to explaining how the two problems differ with a straightforward comparison of the mathematics behind the two problems.  It's not advancing any new theories or the like, and as it serves as a comparison to the other major mathematical problem to have received scholarly attention, I think it belongs in the article.  Even if don't belong, that problem could best be solved by deleting the Monty Hall section, not deleting the entire article. Caerwine Caer’s whines  03:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's great, but Wikipedia is not a platform for publishing/promoting academic research Bwithh 03:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I'll abstain from voting because I think it's almost all original research and I can't vote to keep, but I really don't want to see this stuff merged back to Deal or No Deal. Since there is quite a bit of interest in just this sort of information (see Talk:Deal or No Deal), it's going to come back somewhere unless someone plans on babysitting every Deal or No Deal article. –  Anþony  talk  03:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as an excellent and illuminating example of the application of game theory. -Toptomcat 04:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree. This can be pretty helpful, I see no reason to delete it. --  K yo cat  ¿Qué tal?♥meow! 04:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So are there external sources for the bulk of this article or are you guys just liking the gist of the OR? Bwithh 04:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep This article is one of the things that is an *advantage* to wikipedia. It's not like the math is incorrect, and is applied in a new way. Xenocide85 10:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, this article is largely unsourced original research (and where it is not it is redundant with Game Theory) and it is a game guide to boot.  WP:ILIKEIT isn't a valid reason for retention.--Isotope23 14:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete For once, WP:NOT a game guide actually applies. Can be merged as a short section into Deal or No Deal. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A short section in Deal or No Deal containing verifiable material attributed to reliable sources already exists. What's the point of deleting the article if the content just goes somewhere else? –  Anþony  talk  16:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep helpful--Slogankid 15:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, it's just a game guide/technical manual. Contains reams of OR and would set a poor precedent for similar Gameshow X strategy articles. Note that most of the 'Keep' comments are simply saying 'I like it'. --Nydas (Talk) 15:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete it may be interesting, but at best it is a summary of an academic paper, and if not that, it is a game guide. Either way, it is not suitable to Wikipedia.-- danntm T C 16:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Looks like OR to me. -- MECU ≈ talk 16:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Tone it down a bit, but don't get rid of it! FirefoxMan 16:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is not an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia. Put it on Wikia or something. Recury 18:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Delete or No Delete? I'll take delete. The nom, Bwithh and Isotope23 pretty much sum it up. Agent 86 19:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge to parent article. Is it just me, or wasn't there another Deal or No Deal article up for deletion lately? Just H 20:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete As per Brighterorange, WP:NOT a game guide definitely applies here. - fchd 21:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per nom, per Bwithh, per Nydas. per WP:NOT a game guide, and per WP:NOR. There might be some tiny bits that are worth salvaging, but if so, those should be rewritten (from scratch, don't merge) in the article about the show (if they're not already there).  From my brief read-through, I suspect there's very few such bits in any case.  Xtifr tälk 21:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and Merge Chess, Texas hold 'em, Contract bridge, all have strategy subsections. TonyTheTiger 22:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, and those three articles are all extensively sourced. Sadly, the one source cited here does not cover game strategy, but only a particular aspect of human economic behavior studied in relation to one scenario one the show. See my comment below. Xoloz 22:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and merge only the sourced portion This article is really about two different things: 1) a large, unsourced, original research essay on playing strategy, which is very interesting but must be deleted until it can be sourced; and 2) a verifiable, notable portion about a news-making study by economists, using the show as a vehicle for the examination of situational risk aversion. The latter may be merged, or kept outright in its own re-named article -- but it should most definitely be kept in any case; the former must go, for now. Xoloz 22:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That already exists. See Deal or No Deal. Once again, if this article is deleted, its contents must not be merged into Deal or No Deal. –  Anþony  talk  23:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The merge already have been performed (or this article having arisen from the show), a redirect would be a perfectly acceptable compromise, should consensus so suggest by favoring a general keep outcome. Xoloz 00:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that was summary-style section I added to Deal or No Deal after Deal or No Deal game strategy got split off. –  Anþony  talk  19:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Fascinating article. One that should be featured and praised, not deleted. This is the type of entries that rewards people who hit "Random article". 75.213.29.188 09:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - despite it being interesting, it is still original research. -- Whpq 15:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I simply can't find any support for the idea that this is anything but pure original research. --TheOtherBob 19:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep sourced material and merge comparison with Monty Hall problem. The Deal or No Deal article covers it pretty much, and the comparison would help in the explanation in the "Monty Hall problem." If there is no further sourcing, then.... ZONK! B.Wind 21:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The Mounty Hall section has no more sources than the rest of it. Playing musical chairs with unsourcable original research solves nothing. –  Anþony  talk  22:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge sourced portion into Deal or No Deal article, then redirect. Papers of Post et al are sourced and notable. Monty Hall section may fit better in the variants on Monty Hall problem. There is a good article to be written on this topic; this is not it, and a redirect is appropriate in the interim. Eludium-q36 21:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The Post paper is already in Deal or No Deal. No merging is necessary. If this page goes, the content should go with it. –  Anþony  talk  22:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge sourced portion into Deal or No Deal article, then redirect, per last nom. Any OR here needs to be deleted, but the connections to probability and game theory in the "Deal or no Deal" model mean that it deserves a more comprehensive treatment than a simple "it was mentioned on the WSJ once". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quack 688 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Keep BrenDJ 02:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This is definately not a game guide. Its also very informative about how the banker's thinking during the game. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.247.128.79 (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Delete OR. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual on how to win a game show....or grow a creepy soul patch. 205.157.110.11 15:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki: wikibooks or wikihow This article belongs in wikibooks or wikihow as it is a HOWTO article.  See WP:NOT. Alan.ca 16:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete It doesn't matter how interesting original research is, if it's OR it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --G Rutter 09:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete OR, pure and simple. Eusebeus 11:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - existing section in DOND article already contains the part that is worth keeping.--Kubigula (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is useful academically as an application of game theory Iffykid 03:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki - not fit for WP mainspace, is interesting topic, I'm thinking WikiBooks but I'm sure there's a wikia wiki on Deal or No Deal that could take this -- Tawker 22:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Now Transwikied -- Imported to wikibooks, to improve this article-come module, please see b:Transwiki:Deal or No Deal game strategy. -- SB_Johnny |talk|books 23:10, 19 December 2006 (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.