Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where-to-be-born Index

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where-to-be-born Index

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Where-to-be-born Index (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Creating nomination on behalf of 216.160.67.169, per their request. I am neutral. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copied the following reason from Talk:Where-to-be-born Index#Nominating this article for deletion―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this article for deletion due to its encyclopedic irrelevance and lack of notability. Specifically, this article qualifies for deletion due to these reasons from the Wikipedia:Deletion_policy:

• Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)
• Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)

As others have noted, this article is essentially advertising for the Economist Intelligence Unit. It is not a culturally relevant index as evidenced by its lack of incoming links and discussion relating it to other article. 216.160.67.169 (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep. The subject is notable, and there is no rationale for deletion by the original nominator. Utopes (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. The subject is notable, and there is no real rationale for deletion. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 04:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject is notable, and after reading the article, I don't see any advertising content in the page. Hog Farm (talk) 05:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep No rational for deletion. An IP address requested an article be sent to AFD at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion without giving a reason why. Dream Focus 14:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Deletion is not cleanup. Passes WP:GNG per mentions in RS. UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 02:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.