Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Composite Index of National Capability


 * 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. With two suggested merge targets, this discussion can't be closed as one or the other. Any editor so motivated can merge as normal, of course. Wily D 07:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Composite Index of National Capability

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Personal Research and the data used completely irrelevant as it is over a decade old Twobells (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 August 14.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  19:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge into Correlates of War. Not especially notable by itself. Bearian (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. 15:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. 15:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  TheSpecialUser TSU 01:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep- As per one of the cited sources, the CINC is “among the best-known and most accepted methods for measuring national capabilities.”  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 02:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge - as a section under National power. A redirect may also be appropiate. Regarding Correlates of War a comment or line could be useful there, but better under National power article. Merging would improve the NP article. Jrcrin001 (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - of the four provided references, one is anonymous (though the organisation is identifiable by working back through the URL), one is a presentation for which the author can be theorised (again, back through the URL - it's on his section of his faculty's site but the document itself contains no details), one is a fairly well-referenced university thesis for which the author is known and the other is an excel sheet with a list of numbers (clearly not a reliable source). I would venture to suggest that only the university thesis would constitute a reliable source and one single reliable source surely does not constitute significant coverage. I do, however, think this is a surmountable problem but the article needs some work. It may be easier to Merge as others have suggested. Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2012 (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.