Talk:allocation of resources

RFD discussion: December 2018–February 2019
I think it's SoP. The entry only talks about the economic sense, but see on WP: it can be used in numerous other fields. Equinox ◑ 21:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC) Deleted. bd2412 T 20:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. The usual sense of the term – which is the only one in use* – is indeed a sum of parts. But this definition is so strangely and awkwardly phrased that it is hard to make out what exactly is meant. Usually, when people allocate resources, they attempt to do so in a reasonably economic (i.e., not wasteful) way, but optimality should not be included as part of the definition any more than healthful should be part of the definition of . After all, you can have very bad allocation of resources as well. --Lambiam 21:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking there are two senses: (1) the activity of allocating resources, and (2) the outcome of that activity.
 * Delete, so obvious, wow. I could never conceive the idea of looking up this phrase at whole. Fay Freak (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - sum of parts, crap definition. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - resource allocation is also widely used - I am not seeing a set form here. John Cross (talk) 06:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, SOP. Per utramque cavernam 15:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)