Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/No-win situation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No-win situation was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep the article.

Just a definition. I see no encyclopedic potential. Gazpacho 09:02, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. MAybe add in about "heads you lose, tails you lose", but definetly keep. Dracula the bat 15:42, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, a very common situation, a lot of potential explanations (including psychological biases) and potential examples. A very rich topic. To start with, I suggest a link to pyrrhic victory, catch 22, etc. --Pgreenfinch 10:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. should be expanded. Is part of Game theory - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 12:24, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • We need an article on this, probably, so keep, but this really needs improvement. —siroχo 16:45, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Fix. zoney ♣ talk 01:35, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is a concept here that someone should explore and document. This is more than just a definition. I vote for what Pgreenfinch said above. And there would be a cluster of similar good pages on Win-win situation and Win-lose situation or associated concepts Win-win approach and Win-lose approach. Fortunately, these comments will be stored with the No-win situation page. My thanks to Gazpacho for bringing all of this to our attention. ---Rednblu | Talk 05:45, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, can't add anything to the above :-) Kim Bruning 13:36, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Important concept in Game Theory. I don't think that win-win or win-lose are so important -- maybe they should be created as redirects to here, which can mention them in passing? --Improv 15:01, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, expand, and mention the Kobayashi Maru. :) func(talk) 08:44, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Better let someone who knows game theory to rewrite the article. -- Toytoy 16:59, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
"No-win" is not a term within the scope of a dictionary. If I were an expert, I will write:
  • Defenition (dictionary part)
  • Why
    • Single player game (the opponent is God or your computer)
    • Two and more player
  • Mechanism
    • The algorithms that lead to lose-lose (e.g. Tit-for-tat against Tit-for-tat and someone accidently betrayed once)
    • How to correct it
  • Real world examples
This topic is too broad and important to be left in a dictionary. -- Toytoy 01:09, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep -- But the whole article appears to need a re-write. A no-win situation can apply to one side, not necessarily to both. I.e. it's a game/situation with a negative utility for your side, regardless of your move/action/choice. -- RJH 22:11, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In game theory terms, though, it must apply to both sides or it is a "win-lose" situation, not a "no-win". --L33tminion | (talk) 22:18, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • delete - the wiktionary definition is better; I would expect a 'no-win' situation only to apply to one individual not both sides in a conflict (a "lose lose situation") Kappa 00:15, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. GRider 07:00, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I did some rewriting. --L33tminion | (talk) 22:18, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable and factually accurate -- [[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 23:58, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.