Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CoRisk 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 delete.  MBisanz  talk 02:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

CoRisk Index

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a economic indicator which has been proposed in a paper which the authors have put on arXiv but which has not yet been published in a refereed journal. There are three references which are supposed to show the notability: one is a press-release (it is odd that the University of Oxford would publish a press-release about an unpublished paper, but probably they just need money now), the Washington Post I can not access behind a paywall, and the German one indeed reviews the submission, though briefly. Borderline TOSOON, in my opinion, though of course the situation changes quickly, and the thing can even become fully notable during the nomination. Ymblanter (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

*Delete. Seem to be an advertisement with fake references. For example, cited Washington Post article does not seem to say anything on the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Washington Post article refers to the index explicitly with a picture together with a citation from the main authors: "Manufacturers were among the first publicly traded companies to note travel and supply-chain risks related to the coronavirus outbreak in China in financial filings, according to a separate analysis by Oxford researchers Fabian Stephany and Fabian Braesemann and collaborators in Berlin. By March, manufacturers were noting domestic production issues." H!csuntdracones (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, GoRisk appears in the legend to the figure. I missed it, sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As a creator of this page, could you please include an equation explaining how this index was calculated? My very best wishes (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Two more media references on the CoRisk Index, from the UK and Spain, have been added and the article of the Oxford Internet Institute is now referring to the work, too.78.55.104.35 (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC) — 78.55.104.35 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. First of all, there is only one currently unpublished (not peer-reviewed) research article which introduces this index, and very few publications about it. So, how exactly this index was defined/calculated (an equation?). I do not see it in the article in online archive or on the WP page. According to abstract of the paper, "Based on natural language processing, we identify corona-related risk topics and their perceived relevance for different industries. The preliminary findings are summarised as an up-to-date online index.", and so on. This is not a definition of the index. It seems too early to create this page, since the index is based on a single unpublished research paper, and the page does reads as promotion (it does not explain what the index is, and why it is so good). My very best wishes (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. ( this is double vote. My very best wishes (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC) ) Both, the current working paper version and the WP page of the index state the calculation method, e.g., in the paper on page 10: "The CoRisk-Index is a compound measure (i. e. geometric mean) of the share of firms that have reported corona-related risks (see Fig. 2B) the average number of corona-keywords per report (see Fig. 2C) and the industry-specific text negativity (see Fig. 1A), aggregated weekly." This equation is now stated on the article page, too.H!csuntdracones (talk) 08:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is your second vote, and you should not be voting as creator of the page. Thank you for including the equation. So, this is basically a "self-perception" index based on the number of certain keywords in reports. But it still seems to fail notability guidelines in my opinion. The index was introduced in a single research paper that was self-published online and cited by a small number of other publications. It is also not at all clear how useful such index would be compare to other similar metrics. My very best wishes (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I was not aware that page creators should not be allowed to vote in this process. H!csuntdracones (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You voted two times. Another "keep" was by an IP who came to the project specifically to make this single vote. I assume that was not you or your collaborator? Well, this index does not seem to be an economic indicator because it is not based on any real quantities like the loss of production, but on wording in reports. My very best wishes (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your remark. I believe that indices which are entirely based on industry or consumer expectations such as the Ifo Business Climate Index likewise qualify as an economic indicator. H!csuntdracones (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, sure, Market sentiment, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 22:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete I have grave MEDRS conserns about this. We don't allow prepubs to be used as sources for a reason and we shouldn't be using a GNG handwave - and a borderline (possibly failed) GNG handwave at that - to incorporate them into Wikipedia. The idea that some prepub is going to have lasting and permanent notability is also one I'm quite skeptical of - I don't know that this passes the 10 year test. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 10:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete It may be an upcoming economic indicator. But, it still need to be published with a refereed journal or a coneference proceeding. - Hatchens (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I see more and more academic "advertising" creeping into Wikipedia. Ifnord (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2020 (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.