Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unsolved problems in economics

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. Article also renamed to Morgenstern's thirteen problems NW (Talk) 21:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsolved problems in economics[edit]

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

Appears to be an original research. Lacks sources since August 2006 (my attempt to find any using Google failed), I've also found some criticism of this article here and here — vvv^t 20:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my request. The original research was removed from the article, and it contains reliable sources now — vvv^t 15:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Strong Keep (see "revised position" just below) Although I think an article with this title can meet all Wikipedia policies, one with this title absolutely needs to be rigorously sourced. This isn't it. This article hasn't been sourced for a long time, so I don't see any prospect of that happening any time soon. When someone is willing to provide sources, an article with this title can be resurrected. Until then, this probably does a lot more harm than good, since it could easily mislead a lot of readers. -- Noroton (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Revised position I'm happy to be wrong about the prospects for sourcing this article, which now seems to meet Wikipedia standards. This is essentially the new article I was looking for. Seels and other editors have done a real service. (Off the topic of deletion: It isn't as easy as it might be for a layman to understand it, but I'm glad we have it.) -- Noroton (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete No refrences, appears to be original research. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC) The artcile is now substantially rewritten and appears to be adequately referenced, so I withdraw my delete and replace it with keep. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:ILIKEIT and it's WP:INTERESTING but even interesting, likeable original research is still OR. Mandsford (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually rescuable. As with David Hilbert's 23 unsolved problems in mathematics (Hilbert's problems) there is at least one set of acknowledged unsolved problems in economics that is recognized by economists and has been discussed in the literature of the field for some 37 years. The paper that put that set of problems forward is:
- Oskar Morgenstern (1972). "Thirteen critical points in contemporary economic theory". Journal of Economic Literature. 10: 1163–1189.
Unfortunately, I have no access either to it or to the later papers, books, and journal articles that it engendered, such as doi:10.1177/1354066100006001003, doi:10.1017/S1053837200002601, and doi:10.1080/08913819808443492 for just three examples. Uncle G (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have access to the articles and I can find reliable reference to help improve it. I'll start with the given one (some of the them have been since solved so I'll tried to weed them out). Please don't delete and at least give me a slight chance to improve it. However, most will be book references and journal articles that required paid access to get too. Seels (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone look at the article and tell me if I'm taking the right approach? I normally just fix typos here so I'm new to this slightly. I plan to do more, but you have to start somewhere. I will do more tomorrow since I have to go now. Seels (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~In the absence of some rapid improvement, delete without prejudice.~~ Wikipedia readers could be well served by an article on Morgenstern's problem set, but they are not being well served by the article in its present form. SlamDiego_←T 01:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument appears to be that this article is a valid stub, but we should delete it because it hasn't yet been expanded to be a comprehensive article on the subject. How does deletion get us that expansion, exactly? Uncle G (talk) 01:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please do not employ such counter-arguments. First, my argument does not entail a claim that this is a valid stub; rather, that it is an unacceptable stub. An acceptable stub would at least do no harm. (On the other hand, if all that a stub did was no harm, it wouldn't actually be an asset.) Second, the deletion is not itself expected to get us the expansion, nor is it expected to hinder the expansion; it is expected merely to sweep-away an article that, as it is, should not exist. —SlamDiego_←T 02:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You present no reason for this stub to be "unacceptable". Indeed, your only objection is that it has not been improved. Nor have you offered any explanation of the absurd claim that the stub does harm. Nor have you presented any policy-based reason that this stub "should not exist". Once again, your argument appears to be that this is a valid stub, but we should delete it because it hasn't yet been "improved" to be a comprehensive article on the subject, because it does some mystical unexplained "harm", and because it "should not exist" for no specified reason. So I ask again: How does deletion get us improvement, exactly? What is this mysterious "harm" that this verifiable stub is doing? And what actual basis in project policy do you have for your rationale? Uncle G (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - You are again misrepresenting my position. I did not level the lack of improvement as an objection; instead, I made it plain that rapid improvement would be sufficient to change my position that it should be deleted. (As a matter of logic, that is quite a distinct position.) I have already explicitly stated that it is not a valid stub, so insisting that I argue that it is a valid stub is simply disruptive. A pejorative reference to “some mystical unexplained ‘harm’” is a poor substitute for civilly asking me to clarify why I think that it's an invalid stub. I haven't, on the theory that it's rather obvious what is wrong with the article (hence the nomination) — it was, when last I looked, close-on to gibberish, without even a sensible enumeration of the problems to which Morgenstern drew attention — and that the only disagreement is on how significant that wrongness is. Only if the sole possible reason for deletion were to promote expansion would it be appropriate to demand that I show how deletion would lead to expansion. (Again a simple matter of logic.) The purpose of deletion is to clean the slate for the sake of a reader who might otherwise come to the article; it's simply better to have no article than to have the sort of article that prevailed when I looked at it. —SlamDiego_←T 16:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the nominator has expressed a wish to withdraw his nomination, but concern that the two calls to delete might preclude a withdrawal, I drop my call to delete-without-prejudice. —SlamDiego_←T 18:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Query: WTF is with the reference to AfD/Unsolved problems in medicine in that infobox? —SlamDiego_←T 01:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Read it and find out. Uncle G (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not the most useful response from you, but I see that the article was in the past bundled with “Unsolved problems in medicine” in AfD discussions. —SlamDiego_←T 02:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - On the contrary, it got you to read it and find out, saving the effort of explaining the obvious, which is very useful. Uncle G (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nonsense. My one-sentence summary (“the article was in the past bundled…”) serves multiple editors, while you chose primarily to serve your spleen. —SlamDiego_←T 16:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In its present form, the article reads like it is "List of unresolved problems in economics" and is nonscientific and nonnotable. I would support a keep contingent on finding an editor to rewrite the entry as coverage of the article. Otherwise, delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystache (talk • contribs) 2009-08-24 02:55:48
- Please explain how you conclude "non-notable" from a subject that is clearly covered in academic journal articles written by economists. Also note that AFD is not cleanup, nor is the deletion tool the way that articles get expanded from stubs. Uncle G (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for now. I'm gonna set about searching for some more sourcing, but 'open problems' articles are both tantalizing and dangerous. Unsolved problems in mathematics clearly fits our inclusion policy but isn't a very interesting article/list. Category:Lists of unsolved problems will probably show lots of similar articles. There is some sourcing available, but I'm not sure that Morgenstern's ideas of what is or isn't an interesting open problem makes for a good subject for a wp article. Protonk (talk) 04:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Updated comment. The problems brought up by Morgenstern in the 'anchor reference' (http://www.jstor.org/pss/2721542 for those w/ JSTOR access. It's in JEL, so it should be accessible to someone w/o an econ PhD) aren't so much unsolved problems as they are critiques of the discipline as of 1972 (some much older than that). The problem on the page which is not due to morgenstern is the equity premium puzzle. Depending on who you ask, this was pointed out in 1985. Note the use of the word "puzzle". This refers to a bit of Kuhnian hedging about the nature of the problem. The prevailing 'theory' surrounding the equity premium puzzle (and many other puzzles in behavioral finance) is, jointly, the Efficient market hypothesis and the Capital asset pricing model. The equity premium puzzle is a puzzle and not an anomaly because it is seen (by some) as a manner for refinement rather than wholesale replacement of the two theories. Other problems in behavioral finance exist, such as the nominal share price puzzle and the closed-end fund puzzle (ch. 3), but I don't know that sourcing exists to elevate them to the same level as the Millennium Prize Problems. A source like this one may be more appropriate to build this article from, but as it stands, the article will have to be completely rewritten. Protonk (talk) 06:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Interestingly enough, the nominated version, while basically OR, was a much better list of unsolved problems than the current revision. Having said that, I applaud the work going into the current revision. Protonk (talk) 06:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Article is on a notable topic. Needs to be rewritten to better reflect what was in the original article by Oskar Morgenstern when he set out the list of 13 unsolved problems. However, needing a rewrite is not a reason to delete, especially since the article as it stands contains some information and citations that would be lost if it is deleted. Obviously, having the article there would make the rewrite easier. LK (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Rename Article should be kept but it should also be renamed, per CRETOG8's comment below. LK (talk) 05:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As usual, Uncle G has shown the way, which isn't to delete this promising start. Please see our editing policy for further guidance. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page is of interest to economists and may become more useful as more editors add content. The references are to legitimate, well known sources. Lattefever (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Lattefever[reply]
Keep - fascinating. -MBHiii (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable paper by very notable Morgernstern. I don't think the article title is very good though (although I understand the attractiveness of mirroring the unsolved problems in maths). Such improvements can be handled outside an AfD. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to delete or merge See my indented comment above for some background. In searching for a current list of open economic problems, I run across the principle trouble I have with this list: no one agrees what is or isn't an open problem. We have some agreement about what may constitute puzzles or anomalies in the current frameworks of various subdisciplines, but no agreement that these boil down to a puzzle or boil down to an anomaly. The equity premium puzzle (As I say above) is a good example of this. If we assume that the framework of the CAPM and the EMH are appropriate, the equity premium puzzle may be an open problem, insofar as no one has advanced a bulletproof explanation of why the risk adjusted return for stocks is higher than for bonds. However, the reasons why the problem is open are not limited to lack of sophistication on the part of researchers. If we reject the EMH or find fault in the CAPM as a descriptive tool for these purposes (See MacKenzie's 2006 book for some discussion of this) then the equity premium problem is an anomaly. It is an indication that the theoretical framework needs to be scrapped. If we accept some tenets of behavioral finance, then the equity premium problem becomes much less exciting. Instead of an open problem it is waiting for some data to be filled in. That's even if we accept that the equity premium problem will remain open forever. Much like the year end effect and the weekend effect, the equity premium problem may eventually be arbitraged away, leaving no anomaly with respect to the EMH. This is troubling for this article because among the listed "open problems", the equity premium problem is the only one with some contemporary support as an "open problem" and it wasn't even in Morgenstern's list! On the subject or Morgenstern's list, I'm dismayed to see people accept that it is a list of open problems when it clearly is not. The two listed--relevance of revealed preferences absent a budget constraint or with durables and conflicts with contracting and Walrassian equilibrium--aren't "open problems" as it were. They (as the rest of the list does) speak more to the problems of characterizing economics as a science than they reveal open problems. The error of assuming a unitary policy maker when most organizational problems are collective action problems (Morgenstern's first 'critical point') is a flaw of economic assumptions and methodology. The precession of Mercury in 1900 was an open problem. Not so for much of Morgenstern's list. What this list needs is a current source asking "what are the open questions", a determination of what sort of questions go on the list, and some check against formation of this list solely through editor opinion. Protonk (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - I'm neutral as to whether this is notable (it certainly was at one time, but I'm not sure it's retained its notability). I certainly don't object to keeping an article describing Morgenstern's description of the "13 Critical Points". However, it needs to be renamed to make it clear that this is merely Morgenstern's list and not something canonical. So the name, "Unsolved problems in economics" is inappropriate. I'd recommend either naming it directly after Morgenstern's article, or something like "Morgenstern's thirteen problems". The alternative--trying to have the article be about unsolved problems beyond Mogernstern's list--seems like pretty hopeless WP:OR to me. CRETOG8(t/c) 20:37, 25 August 2009 (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.