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]

Sorry but random names don't prove a thing. How about the methodology, like I've already mentioned a number of times. What were the questions asked? Did they ask everyone the exact same questions word for word? How many people from each country did they ask? Did they ask billionaires living in mansions, or poor people living in slums? Or both? Did they only ask men? Women? Only seniors? Children? An even amount of each? Did the demographics of who they questioned stay exactly the same from country to country or did they only question people living in slums in one country, and people living in mansions in another country? Did they question an even amount of immigrants and natives?

Do you understand what I'm saying? Surveys like this are 100% meaningless without the methodology behind them, because you can literally get whatever results you desire based on the questions you ask, and who you ask.

Sbw01f (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the source via a library or buy it. There is no requirement that there should be on online source.Ultramarine (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]