Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mercer Quality of Living Survey

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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mercer Quality of Living Survey

Mercer Quality of Living Survey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Only one source, possible copyright violation, very few links, uncategorized Kevlar67 03:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Aside from everything Kevlar said, there are only 100 nonwiki ghits - not notable. YechielMan 04:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — copyrighted list. — ERcheck (talk) 05:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of notability, but rather that this article copies the list, which is copyrighted. If the article were about the list, it would be a different matter. — ERcheck (talk) 11:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete the findings of the survey are copyrighted. (Remember, there's plenty of notable subjects that have no web presence at all so Google is not a reliable indicator for things not internet-related. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - among other things, you get more than 1 million google hits if you take the quotation marks out (and that's simply because few other websites refer to it using the specific phrase "Mercer Quality of Living Survey"). I remember when this survey came out, it got a decent amount of news coverage. ugen64 05:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I googled "quality of living" + survey + mercer. About 20,100 hits. They clearly have very good press, with or without us. It feels a bit like self-promotion to me. Ventifax 08:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Pragmatic Keep The fershlugginer thing will just bounce back anyway, & we'll just go through this again. Ventifax
• Delete replaces the original market value of the original source, so it is copyvio. No context other than list. Jerry 22:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see this as a promotion for Mercer, but simply the most notable and most often cited tanking of cities. This is the list that everyone refers to when they do municipal comparisons. Also I don't see how a list can be copyrighted. Can anyone explain what is exactly copyrighted and what parts can be used. Would a change of format, or a comparison of different ranking studies be better? I agree that the article needs more than just a list, so other lists might be a must to start a discussion and a full fledged article. Maybe this should be merged into a more general article on quality of life in various cities. I don't really like the article as it stands now, but I would hate to see such valuable and interesting data disappear.

☭ Zippanova 04:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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.