Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Utility theory of value


 * 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   delete.  kur  ykh   06:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Utility theory of value

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

“Original research”, and otherwise redundant. When turned by an admin into a redirect to “Utility” (in response to a call for speedy deletion), the article's creator reverted it to the “original research”. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 19:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Third, while the article “Utility” is indeed deficient, that is reason to improve that article, not to create a fork. Fourth, the article that you created is “original research” — essentially something that you've concocted yourself. Wikipedia is not the place for that. You're free to do as Gene Ray has, and create such a page elsewhere. However, let me, as an economist, recommend that you run your ideas past someone kind with expertise in decision theory first. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 03:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Historically, utility theories of value seek to explain the price of a good or service in terms of its usefulness (with some notion of pleasure often taken as a relevant measure of usefulness), as opposed to cost-based theories, which explain price in terms of costs of production (eg labor input). The modern utility theory of value specifically looks at the marginal utility to explain price; you can find this discussed in “Marginalism” (with fuller explication of the concept of marginal utility at “Marginal utility”). The creator of the article in question has evidently decided that he's developed some special insight, which involves decomposing “utility” into four parts — “temporal utility”, “geospatial utility”, “form utility”, and “cost utility”. This division involves some wholesale, idiosyncratic redefinition of “utility”, as for example it isn't normally meaningful to speak of the usefulness of when something is delivered without otherwise explaining what the ____ the something is. (Does a camel in the Sahara at noon next Tuesday have the same time-usefulness as a pickle in Antarctica?) There is no “notable” contemporary utility of value other than the marginal utility theory; it would be good to flesh-out the historical section of “Marginal utility” with more discussion of the proto-marginalists — utility theorists who didn't quite make it to marginalism — and they might even merit an joint article of their own (some of them already have individual articles). But someone seeking to learn about utility theories of value can be best served by an improved version of “Utility”. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 00:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not in accordance with the sources, I'll grant you. But some quick research reveals that the utility theory of value is a documented economic theory, alongside the labour theory of value.  ISBN 0765606070 page 54 tells me that it was an idea discussed by Adam Smith, for example. ISBN 0521594421 pages 180–181 tell me that William Stanley Jevons sought to replace the labour theory of value with the utility theory of value, and that the theory is quite distinct from the utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham.  ISBN 0306451603 has some useful stuff, too.  And that's just 10 minutes' work.  Uncle G (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We already have “Marginal utility” and “Marginalism”, which cover the utility theory of value of marginalists such as Jevons, and a general article on Utility which should be the starting point for those looking for utility theories in general. The nominated article is a WP:OR-fork. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 20:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Either delete or develop but at the present state it does not justify and article. DGG (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, guys, the reason I created this stub is that I found it too hard to find the information it contains anywhere else. The last time I looked at the article of which this one is supposed to be redundant, it did not contain this information. Moreover, I personally would not want to wade through all of the more complex and detailed information it contains in order to find this information.  On the other hand, if you are bound and determined to make it hard for folks like me, have it your way.  I will post the information elsewhere on the Web where it can easily be Googled.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owen Ambur (talk • contribs) 22:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: First, you need to put your comments in proper order, instead of just placing them at the top of discussion. Second, you need to sign your comments.
 *  Comment  Delete(updated per Slamdiego Sentriclecub (talk) 08:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)) I'm unable to imagine what the article is aiming to become.  Could you briefly describe what exactly is the utility theory of value?  maybe a link or write a brief 5 minute outline?  Could you google it and give me the best place where I can read about the theory?  I favor keeping articles like these if they can grow and have future value.  Or take an hour, and write a more detailed article, and resubmit the article again if it fails this particular AfD.  Don't give up on the article.  Wikipedia needs more economics editors.  I fully disagree with the theory based on its sentence, and that is why I'm eager to learn more about.  Good luck, and maybe if you can first deal with the notability concerns, I'll help you with a few paragraphs. Sentriclecub (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: As I've said above, the article is a WP:OR-fork.
 * Delete. There may be a version of this article that's keepable, but this isn't it and there's pretty much nothing to build on. Stifle (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2008 (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.