Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Innocent prisoner's dilemma


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Innocent prisoner's dilemma

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

No sourcing given showing that this topic is not original research. Appears to be soapboxing, given. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My soapboxing or medwed's ? Penyulap  ☏  13:53, 1 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't care one way or the other about the article's topic, but I see that the content is sourced and that those sources appear to pass WP:RS and with that that fulfilled the article passes WP:GNG. Since the nominator appears not to see the sources, perhaps I should be told what I have missed? I have not followed every citation to view every source, but then, why would I? The article's topic makes sense and feels as it f is a valid topic for an encyclopaedia whether I care about it or not. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There are only two sources for the existence of the topic -- the rest of the sourcing is for particular examples. We need better sourcing to establish that this is an encyclopedic topic, rather than Original research and Synthesis. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * By showing examples of the topic it is shown that the topic exists. I am, so far, unconvinced. Convince me. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * These three examples are clearly related cases of Miscarriage of Justice, as the IP mentions below. It's less clear that there's a particular subtopic called "Innocent prisoner's dilemma".-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That argument convinces me that my keep !vote is valid, a paradox since you are arguing for deletion Fiddle Faddle (talk) 06:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It should have convinced you that miscarriage of justice is a valid subject. You exemplify the problem with the argument for keeping.  "Sources have been cited that deal with other subjects &mdash; miscarriage of justice, parole, parole boards, Alford pleas, the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and various individual criminal convictions &mdash; therefore keep a different subject." goes the argument.  But nowhere is a source that even uses the phrase to connote a concept, let alone tells us that Medwed was writing about anything other than parole and parole boards, especially when he himself, in the abstract of his paper, tells us that those are precisely what he is writing about.  Uncle G (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the title as such has to be shown by reliable sources. All that has to be shown using reliable sources is that the topic exists and is notable, and that I feel has been easily done. The current title is neat and without a much more WP:COMMONNAME we might as well keep the article under it. Egg   Centri  c  12:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The topics that are actually in the major source here, are parole, parole boards, their decision making, and reform thereof. We already have articles for those.  No sources have shown that this topic exists.  For starters, no-one seems to be able to name it.  If anyone here had read the sources cited and found the topic that they discussed named therein, you'd think that they'd be able to do the simple thing of naming it, wouldn't you?  I've read Medwed's article, and I can name parole, parole boards, Alford pleas, and various other things.  See whether you can, after reading the sources, name this topic as the cited sources name it.  Uncle G (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per: WP:GNG, WP:N/WP:V with WP:RS. Good grief Sarek - give folks a chance to get something flushed out before you go running off to the zOMG "DELETE" end of the pool. @Penyulap - if need be we'll re-sandbox it.  Geesh. Chedzilla (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ten pound hammer is all I have to say :) Penyulap  ☏  14:55, 1 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * keep This is a well-recognised issue in law, particularly when contrasting US & UK criminal law. If the article isn't up to scratch as yet, then fix it, but I see no reason to delete. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We already have articles on parole and parole boards, which is what source #2 is actually about (this name being just the article's title, and not used as the name of anything in the article itself), and the Alford plea, which source #2 mentions several times. Yes, the issue is recognized, but we already have articles on the things discussed in the sources by the actual names used in the sources. Uncle G (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is a reason for having an overall article. Very few UK readers would know what an Alford plea was, or at least not under that name. An important aspect of this is its relevance to jurisdictions where there is little dilemma at present (so over-specific terms like Alford aren't known), but where potential reforms to the law increase the risk of such a dilemma. Readers in these jurisdictions should be guided to the specifics that have already arisen in jurisdictions where this dilemma is long-established, as they won't know the specific terms already. Nor will those looking at issues around sentencing be heading first for articles on parole. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We have the overall articles. They are parole, parole board, Alford plea, and (to some extent) remorse.  You're basing the remainder of your argument on the idea that there's some overarching "general term".  There isn't.  This name is the headline title of a paper and a video.  It doesn't "guide" the reader, who is perfectly capable of going to the obviously placed parole to learn about parole in the U.S., anywhere.  And the paper is about parole and parole boards.  Uncle G (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I think deletion would be a bad idea. There is plenty of verifiable, encyclopedic content here, which, if the topic proves not to be notable, could be merged into the likes of Miscarriage of justice. 109.77.140.18 (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep causa sui (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Any chance of a rationale for that bare vote? Uncle G (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The user's name explains all. Rich Farmbrough, 15:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC).


 * In other words: for no reason. That's a fairly useless contribution to the discussion, if it is as you claim.  Uncle G (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename. Not sure to what, but to call something a "dilemma" does not seem NPOV. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why. The question faced by the innocent prisoner is indubitably a dilemma, or practical as well as moral dimensions. Rich Farmbrough, 15:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC).


 * Keep Good RS. No reason by the way not to keep the word "dilemma" which is fully justified by the subject. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that it isn't. It's the title of a video and a paper.  It's not actually the name for anything.  Medwed's article is all about parole reform and the decision making processes of parole boards, and mentions Alford pleas in various places.  It doesn't actually use this name anywhere in the body of the article.  (Ironically, it mentions the prisoner's dilemma on page 497, and that's as close as it comes.) Uncle G (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is an argument for a different article title, surely? I see no objection to improving the title if necessary. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We already have the articles by the right titles. We've had them for years.  We've had parole since 2003.  This isn't an alternative title for them.  It's a non-title, taken not from the content of a source but from its title, that doesn't actually denote even a subject that's named in the source.  Medwed has written another article entitled The Zeal Deal: Prosecutorial resistance to post-conviction claims of innocence.  We should no more have a Zeal Deal article because of that title than we should have this article because of the Medwed paper cited here.  It's not a name of a subject; it's a catchy headline title for a paper.  Uncle G (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Uncle G, I wonder, if you went by a description of the subject alone, rather than the title of some paper, but described all the different ways in the English language you could label the topic, and then put them in one of those pyramid diagram things, so that words that are not universal are lower than universally understood ones, and you put the related topics lower down, and put the crux of the problem at the top of the triangle, I wonder, how would you describe the crux of the issue in plain and simple terms ? Penyulap  ☏  22:47, 1 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * The description of the subject alone, as actually documented in the source you hung the article from, is parole and parole boards, as I already pointed out. It says so several times over in the article's abstract alone.  That's what Medwed is addressing.  You didn't actually read Medwed's article, did you?  You didn't even read the abstract, did you?  Uncle G (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources may be reliable, but I seem to be the only person who has read the one from whose title alone this entire article is hung. Uncle G (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Possibly merge into Parole - or Miscarriage of justice. The phenomenon described is real enough, and is periodically the subject of discussion in the wider media - I recall it coming up in the broadsheets after the collapse of the Birmingham Six/Guilford Four/Maguire Seven convictions, and it comes up often when a conviction is overturned after a number of years and the prisoner was previously refused parole. But I think "Innocent Prisoner's Dilemma" is a neologism that is not in popular usage, as there is little analysis of the subject in the academic literature. If it does become more widely recognised as a topic for students of jurisprudence, it could join Alford plea. As it is, the addition of individual cases who experienced the phenomenon but did not give rise to secondary sources discussing it suggests an element of WP:OR. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am quite fond of describing subjects using illustrations myself, but in this case, I guess an image is not going to help the reader, so a few places where it gets a mention might be helpful. Penyulap  ☏  22:51, 1 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - a well discussed problem with plenty of coverage. It may be that it ends up being moved, but for the time being the current title at least has some backing and sounds neat Egg   Centri  c  23:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The article title may be ambiguous as far as the question "is the title the description of an idea, or is it the name of a thing that exists in the real world". The confusion to some editors ironically may be born of clarity. When I came across the problem in policy, and wanted to describe it as precisely as I could, I went looking for that idea expressed properly and clearly. The only difference is Medwed describes prisoners and I describe banned users. Rather than write the WP:Essay I figured kill two birds with one stone and write the article. Medwed put some thought into the title of his paper, and when he loosed his arrow to choose a title I think he struck the bullseye. There is no requirement to choose which we should use, title or description, it's simple and allowable to just accept they at least intersect, or are in fact the same thing. I think it would be interesting, if policy is to take this into account at some point, if we can simply forgo the essay development/guideline sort of stage and have one less page to argue over, and simply use the term, and the article as a description of the term . The cleanliness and 'one less thing to do' is quite appealing to me. When I was doing this 'shameless soapboxing', if you like to call it that I guess, I managed to accidentally shove it into wikipedia space (Innocent prisoner's dilemma) I'm quite an idiot actually, but if anyone wants to delete it that would be cool, rather than make it a complete essay sort of thing. Penyulap  ☏  08:32, 2 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell from that meandering: You want to invent an idea that doesn't exist in the supporting sources, and place it in the main namespace in order to bolster your discussions of Wikipedia policies and guidelines in project space (at the Village Pump). You didn't actually read the source itself; you simply appropriated its catchy headline title (a phrase that the source doesn't use in its body) for inventing your argument-supporting idea around.  Is that it? Uncle G (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, good coverage in secondary sources. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Good coverage of what, Cirt? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep well known and well documented phenomenon, and supplement with information on abuse of plea bargains. Rich Farmbrough, 01:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC).


 * We already have an article on plea bargains. You're exemplifying exactly the problem with this article.  This is no more than the catchy headline title of an article about parole, so it's become a mish-mash of subjects that we already have.  As I pointed out, a lot of people don't seem to have read the sources from which this article has been hung.  The problem here isn't a case of non-existent sources, it's case of mis-use of sources, to bring into existence an encyclopaedia article whose apparent aim is to make a point in project space discussions.  Go and read the abstract of Medwed's article, even if you don't read the article itself.  It tells you that part 1 is about parole, part 2 is about parole board decision making, part 3 is about remorse and the parole system, and part 4 is about parole reform.  Notice how many times the word "parole" is there?  What do you think Medwed is writing about, when he says he's writing about parole? Then meet my challenge: Read the sources and name this topic, as the sources name it.  If one has read the sources, simply saying what they call this, which no-one seems to know, should be easy.  I've read Medwed, and I can name parole, parole boards, and a lot of other things that aren't this. Uncle G (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep it might be a foreign concept, but it is a good concept and well known by many people. Penyulap  ☏  05:47, 3 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article does contain some marginal original research, but there's clearly valid material there too, and the topic is fine and is backed up by citations. Don't throw out the good with the bad, clean up the article. Andrewa (talk) 04:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Marginal"? It's not in the margins.  The original research is right at the core, where a catchy paper headline title is abused as if it were a concept.  The valid material doesn't belong here, because this isn't a subject.  We already have articles on the subjects addressed, and have had some of them for approaching a decade at this point.  There's nothing to rename to, as the titles already have articles, and there's no merger target because this is a rag-bag collection of verifiable things in support of a project-space argument made by the article's creator.  The project-space argument is Village pump (policy), by the way. If you want to show differently, meet my challenge: Read the sources, starting with Medwed, and tell us the name of this topic, as given in sources.  No-one of the people whose argument is that the sources are reliable, has yet to even say what the name of the topic is.  Surely if they have read and evaluated the sources, they'd be able to do that with ease, as they'd be able just to take the name from what they've read. Uncle G (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of writing an article to explain the concept, and was surprised it wasn't there, but then again, it is clear from the article that the concept is simply not well known in some countries, as illustrated by their legal systems.
 * Innocent prisoner's dilemma (IPD) is a legal system so up itself that it is hurting some people.
 * A plea bargain is a legal system that is so completely, hopelessly, and thoroughly degenerate even they offer no contest to the charge, and do their best to drag everyone they can down to their level. A plea bargain is an offer "why don't you join us in depravity"
 * parole is promising to be nice from now on. The Innocent prisoner's dilemma prevents access to the parole, it's not the parole itself.
 * parole boards are people who want you to tell lies and reward anyone who does.
 * Alford pleas was invented in 1963, innocent prisoner's dilemma is older than that.
 * miscarriage of justice let's just merge everything to 'law' instead.
 * Parole deal is probably too misleading and requires disambiguation.
 * parole what does that have to do with it ?
 * "a rag-bag collection of verifiable things in support of a project-space argument made by the article's creator." well yes, that is precisely what it is, except maybe the ragbag bit, but meh, one man's trash is another mans treasure.

Plus, there are the other advantages which appeal to me also, that there is no real need to copy every single concept into project space to explain everything (leave aside the fact I accidentally copied it in by mistake). I figure why not just leave some things as articles, and that way people can't fill them up with as much shit as they usually do to essays. At least with the articles there are set standards, and either way I think that readers get the general idea by the time they have read it.

Of course I am probably breaking some rule or other, I try to break at least something everyday. I do quite have contempt for the little letters of the law, but the spirit or the law, that is a different thing altogether, it is the spirit which I embrace and protect while I take a dump on the letters.

So am I using an article to say 'hey I'm not making this shit up, it's an actual real concept', well, yes, I guess I am. Penyulap  ☏  14:19, 4 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * Having read wp:soap again, I'm thinking it's just explaining the concept. As for neutrality, I can't actually see how to divide the subject into different sides of the issue, I haven't seen any controversy over it, or different schools of thought, but if there is something I'm missing here with the article I would dearly love to fix it, so any hints in that regard would be appreciated. Penyulap  ☏  23:22, 4 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I think there is a valid view that this is soapboxing, I guess where you figure there is a silent majority who view the system (justice or wiki) as perfect, then pointing out the problems IS soapboxing. That is assuming that 'everyone is happy' with the system hurting individuals and the community itself. Penyulap  ☏  02:41, 5 Jun 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is significant coverage of this term in a broad series of sources. This helps illustrate the idea that this term is not a neologism but something approaching a term of art. -- Lord Roem (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. I've actually been reading the sources, as should be evident from the above discussion, and challenge you to name even one of those "broad series of sources" you claim exists that uses this term.  (Hint:  It isn't Medwed, for starters.  I've already pointed out that the nearest he comes is on page 497 where he mentions the prisoner's dilemma.)  I suggest that you actually read the sources.  Uncle G (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * p497 of which ref ? I can find p15xx but i can't find 497 straight off ... Penyulap  ☏  13:25, 7 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * Haven't read all of the discussion, but as far as I understood, your point is no source has mentioned the term except title of that paper, if so, would [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Innocent_prisoner%27s_dilemma&diff=496454758&oldid=496216676 this] fix the problem? (see the quote) --Z 15:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The term has been used in the paper too, in page 556, lines 11 and 12. --Z 16:20, 7 June 2012 (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.