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

Revision as of 16:55, 10 February 2008

Revision as of 05:44, 11 February 2008

Line 54:

: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)

::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)

*'''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)