Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generalized game theory

Generalized game theory

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This concept doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines, since most of the articles that talk about this concept are from the authors themselves. The current sentence in the lead "The theory was developed by Tom R. Burns, Anna Gomolinska, and Ewa Roszkowska but has not had great influence beyond these immediate associates" is especially problematic for a Wikipedi article.

However, the article has a lot of content and has been around since 2008, so it could benefit from a deeper look from the community to validate this 7804j (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and Mathematics. 7804j (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Will proceed to merge as proposed by another contributor as soon as this discussion is closed 7804j (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I wrote this page after AfDs for two other pages on work related to Burns. While the concept is primarily used in the work of Burns and his research group, it is used in multiple peer reviewed articles and represents a significant part of the research agenda of that group. The theory remains in use within that group (and even if it didn't, I'd still !vote wk). Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Since the concept seems to be almost exclusively tied to the originating author, the article contents should be merged to Tom R. Burns, who does have a wikipedia page. The concept on its own does not merit the page existence, as per nomination. Pragmatic Puffin (talk) 08:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a good idea, so I'll withdraw my nomination and proceed with the merge once this discussion is closed 7804j (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I propose to extend the "merge" to this article as well. 7804j (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: The basic material is verifiable in reliable, but not fully independent sources. Because of the lack of independence, I don't think it satisfies notability according to WP:GNG. Given that the topic is closely associated with Tom R. Burns and we try to preserve verifiable content per WP:PRESERVE, a merge to Tom R. Burns is a reasonable alternative to deletion. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]