This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Several of us on the AfD for the Taleb Distribution have suggested that the contents of that article should be merged into this article (or one of the articles on Nassim Taleb's other books), since the taleb distribution is simply a mathematical representation of the concepts outlined in this book. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Against. Generally applicable scientific ideas should have their own articles and not be confused by being discussed within a description of one particular book. In fact one contributed suggestion was this book and two suggested another. If there is sufficient overlap, then a more suitable target for a merge would be black swan theory. Melcombe (talk) 10:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Also Against for the same reasons, it makes sense for them to be separate articles. Only perhaps if they were merely marginal encyclopedic articles to begin with then could you make a case for them to be merged. But I don't see them as this. MathmoTalk 10:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
In Favor. But flexible about where the information belongs, perhaps in the book or perhaps in Taleb. For me, the key is the lack of separate coverage of the concept of a Taleb_distribution in reliable secondary sources independent of Taleb himself. For example, is there a single textbook or journal article that mentions it? If there were, then it merits an article. If all we have are brief mentions by a columnist(s), then it doesn't. Ephery (talk) 12:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Against. Two different things, ones a book the other an idea that is now influencing government policy. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
FOR. This article is so poorly written and sourced all the material in it could be condensed into one paragraph. It reads as if the editor paraphrased a poorly-written elementary school book review. It should be deleted, merged, or rewritten. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
As consensus not reached, and proposal is one year old, I've deleted the merger banner. Indeed, the Taleb distribution article did not have a merger banner.--S. Rich (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)