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

Revision as of 06:11, 8 February 2008

Revision as of 19:16, 8 February 2008

Line 45:

[[User:Sbw01f|Sbw01f]] ([[User talk:Sbw01f|talk]]) 01:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

*'''Keep'''. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a scientific journal. We shouldn't care what methodology they used or how accurate it is (or isn't); we should care about whether it is notable and sourced. It is. The fact is, this survey exists and gained significant media attention, and thus can be covered, even if the science behind it is suspect. But at any rate, this is basically just using the data from one study (the [[Happy Planet Index]]) and using it to answer a different question. The data-gathering methodology in question thus belongs to another article anyway, and thus has no bearing on this one. --[[User:Ig8887|Ig8887]] ([[User talk:Ig8887|talk]]) 06:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' (I apologize for the long explanation, but this is a complicated issue.)

:I admit that this is not pseudoscience and that the researcher is almost certainly legitimate. However, I came to that conclusion only through a lot of investigation because the article is so terribly written. My guess is that the methodology is best described as not being perfectly in line with what a textbook would describe as ideal research but about as good as can be expected in the real world. However, there are different problems with the article.

:I have two minor problems with the article. First, the bulk of the article is a ranked list, which is likely copyvio. If this article is retained, this can probably be corrected by presenting just pieces of the list, such as the top- and bottom-ten nations as well as mentioning other large nations. Second, the sources do not use the phrase, “Satisfaction with Life Index.” Instead, they use the phrase, “The World Map of Happiness.” Moving the article to [[World Map of Happiness]] can solve this.

:If those were the only problems, deletion would not be necessary. However, I do not think that this topic is notable. The news coverage cited in the article draw extensively on a single press release.[http://www2.le.ac.uk/ebulletin/news/press-releases/2000-2009/2006/07/nparticle.2006-07-28.2448323827] The research itself appears to be published in a minor journal. A Google Scholar search for the phrase, “Satisfaction with Life Index,” found only eight hits, some of which predated the research described in the Wikipedia article.[http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%9CSatisfaction+with+Life+Index%E2%80%9D&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search] A search for the phrase, “World Map of Happiness,” got only a dozen hits.[http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%E2%80%9CWorld+Map+of+Happiness%E2%80%9D&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search] The article that the map is based on has been cited only two times.[http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22A+Global+Projection+of+Subjective+Well-being%3A+A+Challenge%22&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search] I cannot justify keeping this article.--[[User:FreeKresge|FreeKresge]] ([[User talk:FreeKresge|talk]]) 19:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)