Deletion of Utility theory of value

Comment: As I've said above, the article is a -fork.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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NOTE)

Comment: First, you need to put your comments in proper order, instead of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FUtility_theory_of_value&diff=244459305&oldid=243763087 just placing them at the top of discussion.  Second, you need to sign your comments.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 Time Cube|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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)