Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satisfaction with Life Index: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:09, 11 February 2008

Latest revision as of 12:51, 8 February 2022

(6 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)

Line 1:

<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">

:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''

<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''no consensus''', thus defaulting to keep. Some good points on both sides, and I suspect we will wind up here again if referencing and presentation do not improve.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 04:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

===[[Satisfaction with Life Index]]===

{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|S}}

:{{la|Satisfaction with Life Index}} – <includeonly>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satisfaction with Life Index|View AfD]])</includeonly><noinclude>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 7#{{anchorencode:Satisfaction with Life Index}}|View log]])</noinclude>

Line 55 ⟶ 62:

::Regarding copyvivo, raw data itself cannot be copyrighted. It is merely one component of the [[Happy Planet Index]] which has 55 citations in Google scholar. The map is notable since it has been cited by mainstream news sources like the BBC. "Satisfaction with Life Index" gets 6,500 hits in Google [http://www.google.com/search?name=f&hl=en&q=%22satisfaction+with+life+index%22] and "World Map of Happiness" gets 17,000 [http://www.google.com/search?name=f&hl=en&q=%22World+Map+of+happiness%22].[[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] ([[User talk:Ultramarine|talk]]) 14:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

:::'''Comment''' For starters, the list is not raw data. The researcher analyzed raw data from various sources to create a ranked list. A ranked list is copyrighted. It is still a minor issue that can be solved without deleting the entire article. The citations for [[Happy Planet Index]] are irrelevant as that article is not up for deletion (as far as I know). There is still a notability issue. “Satisfaction with Life Index” has only 87 unique Google hits[http://www.google.com/search?q=%22satisfaction+with+life+index%22&num=20&hl=en&safe=off&start=120&sa=N], and the first 20 or so are mostly blogs, trivial mentions, and references to or material taken from the Wikipedia article. The results for “World Map of Happiness” are better (640 unique hits[http://www.google.com/search?q=%22World+Map+of+happiness%22&num=20&hl=en&safe=off&start=640&sa=N]) but there are still a lot of blogs among the top hits and very little else that does not appear to come from the press release. If the article is kept, “World Map of Happiness” is the better name, but, based on what sources are available, I cannot justify keeping the article. At most, I could support a brief mention of the map in the Happy Planet Index article.--[[User:FreeKresge|FreeKresge]] ([[User talk:FreeKresge|talk]]) 05:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

::::A list of discovered data cannot be copyrighted,. Source if claiming otherwise. "What Is Not Protected by Copyright?: ... Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration."[http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html] A particular presentation of discovered data can, like a particular graph. Or certain '''produced''' forms of data, like a particular text or a musical composition. But not the'''discovered''' data. (Some can be patented. But that is not applicable here). I am not entirely against redirecting the page to Happy Planet Index article.[[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] ([[User talk:Ultramarine|talk]]) 19:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' as per FreeKresge. [[User:Capitalistroadster|Capitalistroadster]] ([[User talk:Capitalistroadster|talk]]) 19:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' or merge with [[Happy Planet Index]]. The main problems appear to be that (a) the title does not align with the source and (b) unclear how the research presented here is distinct from that presented in [[Happy Planet Index]]. The research method and validity of the concept are irrelevant to the deletion decision. Famously bad ideas (e.g. [[N ray]]) are quite acceptable in WP as long as they are are verifiable and properly referenced. [[User:Nesbit|Nesbit]] ([[User talk:Nesbit|talk]]) 16:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

*'''Merge''' with [[Happy Planet Index]], so the table would include both HPI and SWL. There is no reason to have two separate articles, but neither is there any reason to delete the notable and referenced information contained in this article. [[User:Andrzej Kmicic|Andrzej Kmicic]] ([[User talk:Andrzej Kmicic|talk]]) 02:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

==== References ====

{{reflist}}

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>