Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satisfaction with Life Index

Satisfaction with Life Index

Totally subjective topic. Data is based on unverifiable survey created by non-verified expert; Results are highly controversial. Pseudoscience in a nutshell. Not suitable for an encyclopedia Sbw01f (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Incorrect description. University research material. Cited by for example the BBC: [1][2]Ultramarine (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pseudoscience or not notability is asserted. Also, anything that ranks Denmark as #1 deserves my keep vote! EconomicsGuy (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's been covered by many major media outlets. Kingturtle (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it's been covered by a few major media outlets does not in of itself validate the content. The data is still unverifiable, created by an amateur, and highly subjective. For these reasons alone I don't think it's suitable for an encyclopedia. Show me the methodology, or some sort of proof that the list wasn't made up on the spot, and I'll concede.

Sbw01f (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the links above and in the article shows, it is research done at university by at a by a scholar.Ultramarine (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care where the research was done. I care how it was done.

Sbw01f (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The data on SWB was extracted from a meta-analysis by Marks, Abdallah, Simms & Thompson (2006)." So you can find all the gory details you want in "Marks, N., Abdallah, S., Simms, A, Thompson, S. (2006). The Happy Planet Index. London: New Economics Foundation."[3]Ultramarine (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]