Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. states by Gini coefficient of income inequality


 * 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 The use, by User:Polaron, of U.S. Census Bureau data to source the article removed valid concerns about the original sourcing to a self-published document. Mandsford 20:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

List of U.S. states by Gini coefficient of income inequality

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •


 * reluctant Delete. Information seems interesting but quotes a self-published document online of doubtful notability. No peer review. Appears WP:OR. Also material is sufficiently peculiar to provide little use for a researcher other than "Gee Whiz!" Student7 (talk) 11:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Student7 (talk) 11:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Gini coefficient, which contains such data. This information is verifiable (what Student7 calls a "self-published document online" turns out to be a calculation and methodology by Professor Mark L. Burkey of North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University), and it's also encyclopaedic, so there is no reason to delete it outright, but it's insufficiently notable for a separate article.  Personally I'd put it in a collapsed box in the Gini coefficient article.— S Marshall  T/C 12:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yes, but. The online document is still self-published. It has not had peer review. The figures could be wrong! While you believe the information has been furnished by Prof. Burkey, there is no real way to certify that, which is the problem with self-published stuff. (It is allowed sometimes, but probably shouldn't be here. There is time to get "perfect" information, not something off the professors laptop that he just finished. This is not that much of a time-critical event IMO) Student7 (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've changed the source to use the 2009 ACS data from the U.S. Census Bureau. --Polaron | Talk 15:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge - Interest data, but a single table hardly constitutes an independent article. Stick it in Gini coefficient. -- NINTENDUDE 64 18:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think merging this with Gini coefficient would be appropriate. That article is about the statistic itself, not applications of it; the merge would be akin to merging US States' GDP data with the page on GDP. Though my personal preference is for a separate article, I'd argue a better merge would be to put this into the article on US States; or merge it with the List of U.S. states by GDP (nominal). NZUlysses (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment This might fit in a broader article on topic of Income inequality in the United States or similar name, which could cover inequality measured by Gini coefficient by state, and by major cities, and which could cover other inequality measures. I agree with NZUlysses that merging it into Gini coefficient would be odd.  I would want to consider what articles already exist on income inequality or similar subjects.  Seems different than a GDP topic, too. --doncram (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, i thought I was suggesting Income inequality in the United States as an article that would currently be a redlink, but that is the name of an existing article. And there is a link from that article to this list-article.  So this list-article is like a split out of material.  So the question is, can it be merged back into Income inequality in the United States, or can it be revised to include a bit more and stand alone better.  It currently does not seem like a great article, but it serves a purpose if it is only to hold a table that is deemed too long for inclusion in the other article.  I think it could appear in the other article. --doncram (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a valid spin-off data list for "Income inequality in the United States". We do have a bunch of other similar lists of U.S. states by some economic measure (poverty rate, HDI, minimum wage, unemployment rate). I'm not sure why this list deserves to be deleted. This topic is also a standard measure tabulated by the U.S. Census Bureau . --Polaron | Talk 20:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Say you are a researcher. Okay to give me an OR sentence here, we aren't grading them. The sentence should start with the statement, "Connecticut has one of the furthest, and Hawaii one of the closest income equalities in the country. Therefore we can expect that Hawaii will have.... and Connecticut will have....(something different from Hawaii besides cold weather! :)" (Finish the sentence). I don't see that anything can be judged from this that is useful in any way to anybody. Rich people need people who will operate services for them. Is that good or bad? And so what? What good is this? It appears to me to be just another meaningless statistic. Student7 (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Polaron. Data is well-sourced and encyclopaedic. Could use some secondary sources and another sentence or two at the beginning for context. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Polaron and Uncle Dick, the data on this list is indeed encyclopedic. --Elassint (talk) 16:22, 4 November 2010 (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.