Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A-CEEI mechanism

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. While the issue of OR is problematic, I think those questions were answered in the responses in the discussion. As was the NEO question. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A-CEEI mechanism[edit]

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

WP:OR, lacks citations, fails N for neologisms. Possible merge with Competitive Equilibrium. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, it is quite rude to nominate an article for deletion with such cryptic reasons. I spent a lot of time and effort in writing this article, so if you think it should be deleted, you should spend some effort in explaining your reasons in full English sentences rather than in barely-understandable codes. Now, regarding your reasons:

This is not Original Research. It is a summary of a paper published in top economics journal, with 167 citations.
The sources on which the article are based are well-cited. I agree that it could be good to extend the article with more material and add more citations, but this is not a reason for deletion.
I do not understand what you mean by "fails N for neologisms". I think this reason should be deleted since it is unclear. If you refer to the acronym "A-CEEI" in the title - it is the formal name given to this mechanism in the cited paper.
It should NOT be merged with Competitive Equilibrium. The concepts are related but different. Competitive equilibrium (CE) is a usually a descriptive concept: it describes the situation in free market when the price stabilizes and the demand equals the supply. CEEI is usually a normative concept: it describes a rule for dividing commodities between people. It is inspired by the concept of CE but used in very different contexts and meanings.

--Erel Segal (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "fails N for neologism" is rather ~~nonsensical~~ confusing, as the oft-cited WP:N refers to something else entirely. The guideline in that case would be WP:NEO. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn in Montreal thanks for the link, but I still do not understand, why this specific article is considered a neologism? --Erel Segal (talk) 05:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To begin, we have thousands of problematic and/or questionable articles that are unassessed, and in this particular case my shorthand was supported by the wikilink to the applicable policy. We use a "curation tool" so when you're going through multiple articles with multiple issues, an editor is likely to use shorthand which some may not understand. Ok, so I suck at remembering all the acronyms but that article lacks citations which is why I called it OR. Shawn in Montreal had you clicked on the blue link where I tagged the article, you would have seen it was linked to WP:NEO. Erel Segal this is not about me being rude - it was actually rude of you to call me rude - it's about me doing my volunteer job as a new page patroller helping to clean-up some of the obnoxious backlog. If you think a single paper published in a credible economics journal passes the policy requirement, then you have no reason to be concerned. State your case, and let the AfD run its course. In the interim, I recommend cleaning up the article so it appears more like an encyclopedic article with citations instead of paper published in an economics journal. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme A wikilink to the applicable policy is not enough since it does not explain why you think that this specific article violates the policy. We are all doing volunteer job here... this does not exempt us from politeness.
I understand that you do not have time to carefully read and assess all the new articles, but, this does not mean you should mark for deletion any article that you are unsure about. If you are unsure about the value of a new article, it is better to first contact the main author and ask for clarification. --Erel Segal (talk) 05:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a single published paper in a journal doesn't equate into encyclopedic acceptance of a procedure the article claims to be notable based on citing two sources while the majority of the article remains unsourced. The lead of the article states: A-CEEI is a procedure for fair item assignment. The acronym stands for Approximate Competitive Equilibrium from Equal Incomes. What substantiates the procedure as being notable? Is it in wide-spread use, or is the article attempting to make it acceptable? The majority of statements in the article lack citations, so I would think the presumption of OR is justified. Suggestion: cite more published RS. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I didn't know there was a subfield of economics dealing with quantitation of just allocation schemes, but there seems to be one and it seems to be quite interested in this idea. I find papers working out implementations [1] [2], proposing alternatives [3] [4], and criticizing its assumptions [5]. It's clearly not a neologism in the sense of NEO (having little or no usage in reliable sources such that it requires analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position). The alternative mghti be to merge to Resource allocation, but that article is much too undeveloped to contain and contextualize this idea. FourViolas (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How come you get four violas while the rest of us have just one, or none? That hardly seems like a fair division. E Eng 00:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I wasn't already familiar with this topic but Google scholar finds 167 other papers citing Budish's original paper, and 137 other papers containing the exact term "A-CEEI". I think that's well above the threshold of notability for an academic concept. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment - the keeps and/or article creator need to add sources to the material in the article or move it to draft space because as it sits now, all but one section remains unsourced which lends credence to the belief there may be a violation of WP:NOR. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEXIST: Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. I agree that the article would be improved by incorporating more sources, but WP:Deletion is not cleanup. FourViolas (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but the overall appearance leans to OR. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's a fundamental error (no offence meant): you can't assess OR or notability by looking at an article. You have to look at the world outside to do that. The question is whether sufficient reliable sources exist, not whether some editor has cited them in the article. Of course, doing the latter makes it easy for everyone to see that the former is true, which is helpful, but it's not necessary for a keep at AfD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly widely accepted by academics in its field. I think we should rename the article by spelling out the acronym immediately this AfD is closed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2017 (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.