Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International rankings of India

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: Nominator has wasted enough time of various editors to finally conclude that its content issue and not notability issue. (Non-admin closure) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International rankings of India[edit]

[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)

This page is simply a list of statistics. AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 21:45, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pursuant to WP:NOTSTATS. AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 22:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Before we debate this article, we need to consider Category:International rankings by country which contains many similar articles relating to different countries. If we are to delete the article based on stats, to be consistent the rest of them should also be deleted. Ajf773 (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They all appear to be created by the same user, heroeswithmetaphors. They follow the same structure: the lead section is "These are the international rankings of [country]," often without a period; and they list off statistics that have no context in the article other than being a statistic, which is what the article is about. AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 01:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I find "international rankings" a very vague topic that could include an incoherent list of statistics, which is what this article is. I believe that this article also has no interest to another, in contrast to the polling articles about polls before elections that have been separated from the articles describing the elections in general. AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 02:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, context is required for lists of statistics; simply restating the title as this article does is not a legitimate context description. AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 02:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the compilation of various stats but it serves the purpose of Wikipedia by increasing encyclopedic content on project. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedic content is not any information. Some of these are notable about India, but the majority of these statistics are unnotable. Additionally, Wikipedia serves to present the sum of all human knowledge, not all human knowledge. AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 04:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list provides ~~interesting~~ obviously important/significant and well sourced data. My very best wishes (talk) 01:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INTERESTING refutes your point and explicit states that the argument "It's interesting" is not valid. AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 03:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. The importance/significance of these numbers and rankings is self-evident; they are mostly sourced; nothing else is required for lists. My very best wishes (talk) 03:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSIMPORTANT refutes your point again. AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 03:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your justification for deletion: "This page is simply a list of statistics.". This is not a valid argument. The statistical data may or may not be valid for encyclopedia. These particular data are valid because they are precisely the type of data usually provided in other published encyclopedic sources like Education Index, data for countries provided by World Health Organization, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 04:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is not that this page is not encyclopedic but that it provides no coherent context for the statistics, as discussed in WP:NOTSTATS. Additionally, verifiable data does not make it notable. AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 04:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic of the page is notable, and there are about 100 similar articles in the category "International rankings". Whether or not all the article's content is suitable for inclusion is a different matter. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For notability of lists, see WP:NOTESAL, which states that a criterion that could make a list topic notable is its discussion as a whole, which is not adequate enough for this topic. Additionally, the topic seems like it was made for most of the statistics to fail WP:LISTCRITERIA. AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 17:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep: Very much in-line with similar 100+ articles in Category:International rankings by country. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF refutes your argument: "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist, because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. ... Plenty of articles exist that probably should not." AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 16:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can start a group nomination for all 100+ articles as your rationale applies to them all being mere statistics. If you are too busy, i can help you tag all 100+ articles, send notices to all creators, transclude the discussion on all relevant delsort pages. Buzz me if thats needed! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably set up the bundle templates tomorrow. Additionally, I believe that all of these articles have the same creator. I believe that the bundle would not require a transclusion. AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 04:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not bundling until someone objects to the next proposal. AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 02:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually be fine if this article just listed the important statistics and not random ones that fail WP:LSC like number of chess players. AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 01:23, 8 August 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.