Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simulations and games in economics education

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) Cirt (talk) 04:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simulations and games in economics education

Article is entirely a how-to on the subject of teaching and learning etc.: it completely fails what Wikipedia is not. Nyttend (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there are any relevant encyclopedic facts, merge them with Simulation Games. Delete the how-to. MatthewJ (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh LAWD. Um. Gee. Ok. Using games in economics classrooms (especially undergraduate courses on auction design and game theory) is an important part of explaining game theory and transmitting knowledge. Often the paradoxical conclusions of game theory (where users are assumed to be rational and acting on perfect information) can best be conveyed by actually playing a game. The Ultimatum game is best explained by playing it in the classroom. Same with Guess 2/3 of the average. "Games", as this article defines it, move past that and get into "ludic territory". Meaning that they mean games as in computer games rather than games played to illustrate "game theory". This, also, has some relevance to the discipline and education in general. The ideal article would summarize the views in the literature regarding both "cooperative and non-cooperative strategy experiments in the classroom" (the first kind of game I pointed out) and "computer simulations designed to generate contingent outcomes on the basis of user input" (the second kind of "game"). In order for this article to be that article, we would need to rename it, remove the self-refs, how-to content, and move the external links. that would leave us with a stub that perhaps can be built up properly. I'll take a look at this, but I may not have the heart to rescue it completely. Keep for now, as it has the potential to be improved. Protonk (talk) 03:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. {{under construction}} tag has been present from the first edit and article is only 2-3 days old. Allow time for the construction to take place. Banjeboi 04:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All that's been constructed to this point is totally unencyclopedic: why should we expect any further construction, at least on the part of the placer of the construction template, to be productive? Nyttend (talk) 05:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The template itself states to allow a few days. Likely we're dealing with a newby that didn't realize they couldn't park an in-process article as such. We could AGF that they are working on it. The AfD process, IMHO, should not be the first step here; a prod, clean-up templates and dialog to sort out what's up would have likely been seen as less bitey to a newcomer. I suppose it's too late for a speedy close unless you'd be willing to withdraw AfD and try engaging them to see if they intend to fix this up. If they fail to communicate then prod to see if someone else will step up. A merge would also be workable since the parent is so stubbly. Banjeboi 05:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The article is obviously not entirely a how-to and the nomination is disruptive, as noted above. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this disruptive? I reject an accusation of bad faith: if this were bad faith, I would have speedy deleted it, as it was tagged before I discovered it. Nyttend (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption is not a matter of intent - it is a consequence or outcome. The nomination should be speedily closed to spare us further diversion from more useful work. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Before we tar and feather the nominator, please look at the revision that was nominated. As I noted above, the article was almost completely a how-to. I think we should keep this article (hopefully the original editor will check back to work on it), but I can't at all feel that the nominator acted poorly. I don't see it as a "bad faith nomination" or an error in judgment. Protonk (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't mean to imply it was bad faith nom - just that it had the {{under construction}} tag in place and was only a day or two old. I feel there were multiple options available before the AfD process was utilized. Banjeboi 22:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Protonk. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 15:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. On a path to a new name does Simulation games in understanding economics come close? Any other ideas? Banjeboi 22:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simulations and games in economics education As simulations (the computer whizz-bangery) should be topically distinct from games. I know that some of the literature speaks explicitly of "simulation games" (as in contrived situations with contingent outcomes based on user inputs that happen to be highly realistic or conform to a model of behavior) but for the purposes of a general encyclopedia, we should split the two. Protonk (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me! Any objections? Banjeboi 00:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Protonk (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2008 (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.