Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arrovian uncertainty
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 redirect to Knightian uncertainty.. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Arrovian uncertainty
Nonstandard term, Google produces only mirrors JQ 12:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment seems to be occasionally used. Google scholar gives, while Google Books gives a result that mentions Knightian uncertainty, and thus might be the source the author used. Smmurphy(Talk) 04:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It looks like at least two of the Google Scholar hits are the result of the Wikipedia listing - a good reason to delete this before it establishes itself in the wild. I'd say the term has been used once in a book. As an expert in this field (really!) I can say confidently that while "Knightian uncertainty" is a standard term, Arrovian uncertainty is not - the usual terms here would be "risk" or "unambiguous/crisp uncertainty". JQ 05:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Late last night I was awake enough to put in GS and GB links, but not awake enough to explain why. Anyway, since it is used occasionally and thus might be a search term, it seems that it might be useful to put a redirect here. That way if someone is reading The Economic Impact of Knowledge and isn't paying much attention, WP will know where to send them, perhaps to uncertainty or even as a part of developing Knightian uncertainty or something similar into an article. Smmurphy(Talk) 12:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- A redirect to Knightian uncertainty sounds good. I could probably add a sentence there.JQ 19:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Late last night I was awake enough to put in GS and GB links, but not awake enough to explain why. Anyway, since it is used occasionally and thus might be a search term, it seems that it might be useful to put a redirect here. That way if someone is reading The Economic Impact of Knowledge and isn't paying much attention, WP will know where to send them, perhaps to uncertainty or even as a part of developing Knightian uncertainty or something similar into an article. Smmurphy(Talk) 12:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds good, you can probably go ahead and do the redirect and close this AfD. Smmurphy(Talk) 22:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
