Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taleb distribution


 * 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. Two thirds of the deletes came from socks; the consensus is to keep. I was considering redirect/merge, but as there are two suggested targets, there is no clear consensus on this - however, a redirect/merger could be discussed on the talk page --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 16:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Taleb distribution
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )


 * Not a statistical, finance or economics term Taleb distribution is not a term used by statisticians, economists and is not a term used by market practicioners. This article should be deleted. A google search shows that this term is not commonly used term, other than in mirrors of this piece, or by a man named John Kay who is quoted in the piece. http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22taleb+distribution%22&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=&redir_esc=&ei=Pb-cTPn3AZuN4gbsnt2iDQ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12Pinguins (talk • contribs) 15:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)  — 12Pinguins (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment A quick search finds at least 2 unrelated webpages and a book at http://www.amazon.co.uk/Taleb-Distribution-Probability-Randomness-Economic/dp/6130335520 entitled Taleb Distribution: Probability Distribution, Probability, Fooled by Randomness, Economic Bubble, Hedge Fund, Carry, which seems at least to have an ISBN if it is nothing else. Melcombe (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That book does have more than an ISBN: it has a publisher that takes its content from Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment This is very unfair. The gentleman requesting deletion fails to understand a very simple fact- Taleb distribution is not a statistical term but rather a moral hazard condition which is in congruence with Taleb's general robustness priniciples (which have massive implications in Finance/Economics). Numerous Practitioners refer to the "Taleb Distribution" in that context. Marking this piece for deletion shows lack of research or even awareness of Taleb's work.Please remove this article from the "considered for deletion" list. Maybe it will placate the gentleman if we can edit the page to clarify its interpretation NOT as a statistical distribution but as Moral Hazard Condition.
 * Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asim samiuddin (talk • contribs) 16:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It is a valid definition, it doesn't need a formula to be called a distribution First, John Kay is a respected writer, and when respected writers coin a term to describe something, that term usually becomes part of the language (like Nassim Taleb and the term Black Swan).
 * Second, a simple Google search is not grounds for asserting that a term must be deleted. Taleb Distribution is a qualitative description of certain distributions that occur in real life, not a formula or quantitative model.
 * In fact, because it refers to the Fourth Quadrant (as described by Taleb), knowing the general characteristics is more important than trying to be foolishly precise with a formula.
 * The article must be kept as it is. --MCarr (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I presume the prior comentator is joking by providing this link http://www.amazon.co.uk/Taleb-Distribution-Probability-Randomness-Economic/dp/6130335520 as evidence of this term being commonly used. I fully understand Talebs contribution to risk management and finance and own all of his books, but there are technical names for various distributions used by statistitians and finance professionals, as a Taleb distribution is not the term for a distribution exhibiting leptokurtosos and skewness.  Taleb argues like Mandelbrot that stock returns follow a Cauchy Distribution.  I fear that this piece has been written by a fan of Talebs books who does not have a good grounding in finance and statistics.  Taleb has never claimed to have discovered a new distribution.  This is not a commonly used term in finance, and is clearly not a commonly used term by the general public due to its low hit count on google.   Providing an Amazon link to an out of print book with the improbable name of "Taleb Distribution: Probability Distribution, Probability, Fooled by Randomness, Economic Bubble, Hedge Fund, Carry [Perfect Paperback]" only adds to my case. This definition belongs on urban dictionary, not wikipedia. 12Pinguins (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would I be joking? The fact is that a google search, equivalent to what you had supposedly done, revealed a book or possibly pamphlet in which "Taleb Distribution" is used in the title, so someone obviously thinks it is of some importance.Melcombe (talk) 10:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Reading the definition provided on the article, I do not see it defined as any distribution exhibiting leptokurtosos and skewness. A more diligent search of the Financial Times (of which I happen to be a subscriber) would return 3 columns by John Kay (quoting: "I have several times in this column described the Taleb distribution of regular small profits interspersed by large losses."), and one column by Martin Wolf also describing Taleb Distributions ("Why today's hedge fund industry may not survive", March 19 2008 02:00). Quoting Wikipedia: "Martin Wolf (born 1946) is a British journalist, widely considered to be one of the world's most influential writers on economics. He is associate editor and chief economics commentator at the Financial Times."
 * If Martin Wolf can write "First, many investment strategies have the characteristics of a "Taleb distribution"", economists are using the term.
 * What can be argued is that most finance professionals benefit themselves from such a distribution, and have no interest in discussing this fact.
 * When the article says that "The term is therefore increasingly used in the financial markets", it draws attention to the fact that is not yet as widely used as the term "Black Swan", which is what has drawn the attention of 12Pinguins.
 * This definition belongs to WIkipedia, as do "Ostrich Effect" and many other terms. It is a qualitative description, not a specific distribution, and the use of the word distribution should not be grounds for deletion.
 * --MCarr (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I really think that this discussion should have ended when I tried to clarify the fact that "Taleb Distribution" is NOT a statistical term. So I do agree with 12Pinguins in that regard. BUT it is a term that sure is gaining prominence and use within practitioners of finance. I can point out that numerous funds and trading desks use strategies which are centered around the "Taleb Distribution". Also google hits is NOT a criteria to be listed on Wikipedia (If it were, about 57.428 % of wikipedia would be about Lady Gaga, Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton). Taleb Distribution is NOT some cool terminology created by one of Nassim's fans. 12Pinguins- If you have read all of Taleb's work, it is very dissapointing that you havent been able to grasp the context in which the term "Taleb Distribution" was coined. I would like to invite you to read some of his more literary works and perhaps you will get a better grip around the Centrality of Nassim's Robustness Principle (The Moral hazard angle of which led to the "Taleb Distribution"). I'll even give you a link to a great collection- http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/Technicalpapers.pdf --Asim samiuddin —Preceding undated comment added 23:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC).
 * Keep Part of the reason it's called "Taleb distribution" is to contrast it with other mathematical distributions which have been assumed to apply to markets, when they actually don't. Sufficient citations are already in the article. More can be found on GScholar and GBooks. &mdash; HowardBGolden (talk) 05:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. A number of good points made above.  I have edited the article to reflect these comments, including that it is not a statistical/mathematical distribution, but rather a depiction of a common (though weak) returns profile. I still believe the article should be deleted, as the term has one to two sources, and is not in common use. Arguably an encyclopedia is not intended to be the source of invention of terms.    12Pinguins (talk) 10:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I've seen the charts describing examples of the Taleb Distributions quite frequently; the two writers who used the term are influential enough to describe the term as not merely invented; the encyclopedia is merely reflecting that fact and organizing the knowledge.--MCarr (talk) 12:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Again if 12Pinguins has already realized the points we made and even altered the article to reflect the facts, it would be best if  we keep the article. The term WAS NOT invented here. Hopefully this should resolve it. --Asim samiuddin  —Preceding undated comment added 21:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Following this thread with amusement. I'm not sure why some Wikipedia participants are so keen to keep this article.  I am both a university lecturer and a portfolio manager and I cannot say that this term is in any way in popular use.  Usage by 2 economics journalists does not agree with the current entry as being "coined by practitioners".  I think this piece should be deleted as it is confusing an undesirable type of investment return profile by using the word "distribution" with a statistical profile. I may hop in there and edit just this "coined by practitioners", but I am hoping that no one thinks that my attempt to correct this should be interpreted as a vote to keep the entry!  FinanceLecturer (talk) 10:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep It is not the prevalence of the use of the term that matters, but the prevalence of the concept as it is behind much of The Black Swan and the moral hazard. It is strange to see two people open a wikipedia account to just fight this, with FinanceLecturer just popping up. The point is that Martin Wolf and John Kay are not just prominent "journalists", Wolf was a World Bank executive and Kay was a professor.BajaaS (talk)


 * Delete - Not Notabile This piece does not meet wikipedia's notability standards. Its description has not been adaquately referenced.  Just because two journalists have used the term does not show common usage, and does not make the term notable.  For example, Snoop Dogg uses the term Shazille quite frequently, and some people may even know what he means by that, but the term does not deserve an encyclopedia entry.  I note that Taleb does not appear to endorse the use of this term. Xzv65 (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

*Keep While mostly popular on blogs, I think usage in the Financial Times in multiple articles satisfies WP:BASIC. Also found it mentioned in an article on zdnet Sailsbystars (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Quoting Notability in Wikipedia: "Notability should be demonstrated using reliable sources according to Wikipedia guidelines (not policy). Reliable sources generally include mainstream news media and major academic journals, and exclude self-published sources, particularly when self-published on the internet.". So the fact that two respected economists/journalists have used it and Taleb himself didn't goes against these standards ? If what is missing is the link to the articles, that can be fixed. It is rather easy to campaign about deleting an article because one has never heard about it, it is somewhat harder to write, create and organize articles.--MCarr (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That ZDNet source seems to be based on the Wikipedia article: compare its first sentence, "The Taleb Distribution is a probability distribution where there is a high likelihood of a small gain combined with a small probability of a very large loss, which would more than outweighs any gain", with the first sentence of this version of our article from before the ZDNet article was published, "In economics and finance, a Taleb distribution is a probability distribution in which there is a high probability of a small gain, and a small probability of a very large loss, which more than outweighs the gains". In introducing the word "would" the author didn't even take care to fix the grammar by changing "outweighs" to "outweigh". Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Mtiffany71 (talk) 03:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 05:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect The Black Swan (Taleb book) or Black swan theory both describe similar principles. It could be mentioned in passing as a mathematical description of said principles.  Mentions in the one reference I could actually view were mostly incidental to an article on black swan events. Sailsbystars (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect The Black Swan (Taleb book) Notable topic by another name:
 * Article in Finacial Times (requires free registration), in-depth explanation and how it relates to the 2006 - ???? economic disaster http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eb1062b6-0532-11df-a85e-00144feabdc0.html
 * Charlie Rose interview with Nassim Taleb discussing this very concept in a metaphor for economics (from minutes 1 to 3) http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9713
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Checkuser note: Accounts  and  are the same person.  Risker (talk) 05:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect to Fooled by Randomness, which is the book mentioned in the article as the source of this idea. PhilKnight (talk) 11:37, 3 October 2010 (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.