Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satisfaction with Life Index: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Ultramarine (talk | contribs) →Satisfaction with Life Index: expanded |
Ultramarine (talk | contribs) →Satisfaction with Life Index: expanded |
||
Line 55:
::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 '''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)
| |||