Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Power Index (2nd nomination)

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 delete. slakr^\ talk / 02:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

National Power Index[edit]

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

The entire article is mostly speculation of future history. It is a perfect example of WP:BALL. It also lacks enough references to be considered a notable concept. Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs)} 03:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google Books and Google Scholar search shows that this concept has received significant coverage in many reliable sources. Accordingly, the article should be improved instead of being deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Repeating myself from last time: "At best, crystal ball predictions of dubious value outputted from a non-notable computer model." Carrite (talk) 12:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - When I search for '"national power index" "international futures"' (to ensure results about this subject vs. that combination of words or another index), I'm finding very little. A few papers/books reference the index, but I'm not finding anything much more than a brief one-two sentence explanation of what it is. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete - WP:BALL, the top 5 links on google, not counting the wiki itself, are a wordpress site of dubious accuracy. most of the rest cite the same wordpress site. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 02:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination. On top of the WP:BALL problem, where is the notability of this index? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like other similar indexes from Google, a Google Books and Google Scholar search also shows the concept recieving significant coverage, like Cullen328 said. It also includes past data, not only projected data like other similar lists. In addition, this Google index is from the United Nation's International Futures model, and is hosted by the Google Public Data Explorer, the Atlantic Council, and Institute for Security Studies. DimensionQualm (talk) 05:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
where? i can't find any. this is not the same as the CINC. this is one specific model, that is not used anywhere besides a single wordpress site. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 15:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It received significant coverage in reliable sources. Like Cullen328 said, it should be improved instead being deleted. Supdiop (Talk/Contribs) 13:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
no, it doesn't, i have ckecked google books, one scholalrly articly refers to it, but it still gets it's information from the same dubious wordpress site. you can't add information that doesn't exist to an article -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 15:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The WP:CRYSTALBALL aspects are bad enough, but its lack of coverage in the mainstream press is the real strike against it – ratings that no one pays attention to aren't worth a Wikipedia article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 08:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - The lack of sustained coverage and the futurism that's involved here make this article appear both unhelpful and also against the spirit of Wikipedia guidelines, if not the actual words. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not yet notable. Asserting the existence of references of the basis of a gsearch without actually looking at them does not show notability. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete It is mentioned in many Google Books/Scholars sources but it can't be considered notable as the information itself is dubious. MrWooHoo (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2015 (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.