Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unsolved problems in economics

Unsolved problems in economics

(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]

Delete 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]
Delete No refrences, appears to be original research. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:35, 21 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]
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]