Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison between U.S. states and countries nominal GDP


 * 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. Quite a few of the usual "it's notable" non-votes which are ignored as usual, and the nominator has a fair point, but no consensus to delete. A merge might be useful to create one slightly useful article rather than three pointless ones. Black Kite 13:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Comparison between U.S. states and countries nominal GDP

 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unnecessary list which furthers our US-centricism and would set a precedent for other countries. The United States is not a special case. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Once again, Wikipedia has no precedent. Just because something else exist, is not a reason for other things to exist.  The United States has all 50 of its states on its own, producing more output than many other nations.  The US is the wealthiest nation on the planet, and has been for quite some time.  Sure, the European Union is listed up top, but that's only because a lot of nations poor than the US decided to stick together, and since they are still independent nations, I'm not sure why that counts at all.   D r e a m Focus  10:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Nominator is correct that these are US-centric. I think it would be ideal to add other economically powerful regions, like North Rhine-Westphalia, to a list of this nature (it would rank at #19 on this list).  These are supposedly the figures for the last available year (2008), although the sources are all for 2006.  Mandsford (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm a little tired of the assertion in these AFDs that because something might be primarily of interest to American readers, it should be excluded. On the other hand I'm not convinced of the notability of the comparison; it smacks of trivia. Mangoe (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. There may well be a justification for an article the compares the GDPs of sovereign countries with those of sub-national units, but I don't see any justification for restricting the sub-national units to US states. I'm sure that there are Indian states, Chinese provinces, Russian federal subjects and German länder whose GDPs stand comparison with many independent countries and US states, so it would be better to have a list that incorporates all of these. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Comparisons of this sort are quite common,, for example, If California were a country... and so the matter is notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - where someone has had something relevant to say about such a comparison, let it be said in the appropriate venue. For instance, the point about California is already beaten to death here. Otherwise, this is just a game played by a bored Wikipedian, not to mention unmaintainable. No one has compared the GDP of, say, Kentucky to that of sovereign nations, and neither should we. Oh, and it's a slippery slope: see Comparison between Argentine provinces and countries by GDP (PPP) per capita for what I mean. - Biruitorul Talk 03:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Insightful and interesting article. List contains valuable information that is difficult to find in a condensed form elsewhere. bosoxrock88 (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but possibly combine in some manner.  Other regions can be added also, as suggested above.   .    DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 29 October 2009 (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.