Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erection 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. A Train take the 15:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Erection index
The only two sources cited appear to be highly questionable articles of no real academic or other support, and without those two sources, the page appears to be original research. The content itself appears to be close to nonsense. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Dennis The TIger 08:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Expand there are at least three other refs out there that are easily found on Amazon which lead me to believe there is some substance to this term. -Zappernapper 08:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * comment - and what exactly is so questionable about these articles? they aren't making extraordinary claims and seem to mention where they're getting these terms from (i.e. not pulling them out of their... heads) -Zappernapper 08:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please cite them, and then perhaps people will be able to tell you. Uncle G 10:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * What I feel is questionable about the articles (which are linked from the Erection index article) is that they have impressive sounding titles but are hosted on Web-based journals (at least I see nothing to suggest that they were in commonly available paper journals) of questionable quality and notability themselves. In addition, the articles were clearly not written with academic discussion in mind, but more like journalist musings, if even that.  Further, I suspect the term "erection index" was deliberately used for shock value, which makes it even less likely that good faith academics will adopt the term.
 * Not only that, but as I wrote, the article itself is close to nonsense. I can perhaps accept the premise that over-building of massive construction projects may lead to an economic recession, but the building of a single huge structure leads to a world-wide economic recession?  It's entirely illogical, and unless the "index" actually involves an analysis of world-wide building trends, it will never be anything more than nonsensical.  --Nlu (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable sources, zero hits on Newsbank. Neologism. ~ trialsanderrors 03:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete no verifiability. Mukadderat 00:12, 15 September 2006 (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.