Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glass Ceiling 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 no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 07:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glass Ceiling Index

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

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

An index created by the Economist. Sources in the article are 3 primary and 1 data scrape site. BEFORE showed no IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth. Unneeded CFORK from The Economist#Indexes, a concise and properly sourced edit could be merged. Even if the lack of sourcing for notability was resolved, the CFORK issue remains: just because a subject can squeak by N, doesn't mean there must be an article. In this case this content (edited per above) should be in the main article, there is no reason for a nn stub.

Here is the link to the CopyPatrol mentioned in NPP which will need to be looked into if there is a merge (I did not). [1]. // Timothy :: talk 21:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is likely to become another maintenance chore because the index is updated periodically. It is better to provide a link to the primary source, which already contains all the information that we needn't parrot on Wikipedia. If it is to be kept on Wikipedia, that chart would probably be better either as a horizontal bar graph or a sortable table. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's interesting that two other subheadings from The Economist#Indexes have been expanded into their own standalone articles. Should that be reconsidered, especially given that they too create 'maintenance chores'? Patr2016 (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At least the Big Mac index has become a well-regarded index reported on by a number of secondary sources (see nytimes, for instance). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Economics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Established index commented upon by publications around the world including Politico [2], The Pioneer [3], Al DIA [4], KBS World [5], Japan Times [6], Fair Play Talks [7], MarketWatch [8]. Isn't compulsory to update in detail each year. Article could be developed along the lines of Big Mac Index. This popularly titled index name is likely much more easily remembered by many than say the Gender Equality Index. Rupples (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:BEFORE and Rupples. Bearian (talk) 12:50, 14 April 2023 (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.