Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ludic fallacy


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Ludic fallacy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This term has no independent notability outside of Nicholas Nassim Taleb's work. External references containing this term all refer directly to Taleb and focus on his work in general. I propose merging this article into The Black Swan (2007 book). Previous discussion on the talk page. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 22:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)  0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 22:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not true that it has no independent notability. I hear it used frequently in risk management; I did a search on Google Scholar and it has plenty of citations as a fallacy.Limit-theorem (talk)
 * Care to share? I've looked around pretty extensively and have never found it referenced independent of Taleb's other ideas, indicating that it has no independent notability. 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 20:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. You are not actually proposing deletion, unless you feel there should not even be a redirect at ludic fallacy.  Please withdraw the proposal, and propose (or just WP:BOLDly do) the merge.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hm. If that's procedure I suppose. Admin or non-admin can feel free to close this unless someone else feels that there shouldn't be a redirect. I'll just merge the article myself with redirection to Taleb's page at some point. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 20:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Ludic fallacy is cited as a "cognitive bias," by Scott Adams in his book "How to Fail at Everything and Still Win Big" (Portfolio Penguin, 2013), page 113. He notes he got the term, and others he cites, from Wikipedia's "List of Cognitive Biases"
 * Probably should be unsigned, but obviously that doesn't really support notability. It was a mistake to have included it in that list anyway, since it's not really a cognitive bias. 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 20:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  01:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I am unhappy with the idea that for a concept to be notable it should be used in ways that do not mention its creator. In this case the suggestion seems not to apply anyway and this search suggests more examples though I am blocked from accessing most of them. I am also disappointed about the discussion [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_cognitive_biases#Ludic_fallacy here] which seems to be deprecating having an article because the term "ludic fallacy" may only be used in the popular press. If this were true (and it is not) it might be a reason to make extra efforts to have a responsible article so that intelligent, interested readers can look up a description of the concept and so be better able to assess whatever journalese they are reading and whether the concept itself has any validity. If the present article is "extremely wanting"[//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_cognitive_biases#Ludic_fallacy] I would recommend improving it. Whether it should be merged with The Black Swan (2007 book) is of lesser importance. I think, editorially, it would unbalance that article but that is a matter not for AFD but for talk page discussion. Thincat (talk) 10:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * keep The article needs a lot of help but there's no question about notability: there are plenty of GBook and GScholar references. Merging it back into the book is a mistake; it's indeed possible that any merger should run the other way. Mangoe (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * keep I hear it used frequently in risk management; I did a search on Google Scholar and it has plenty of citations as a fallacy. Limit-theorem (talk) 00:39, 8 August 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.