Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. states by unemployment rate

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS.

The votes were 9 keep, 10 delete. dbenbenn | talk 19:00, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

List of U.S. states by unemployment rate
A list using nearly 5-year-old census data, which is only linked to a bunch of other random US states lists (, which includes List of U.S. states by postal abbreviation and List of U.S. states by time zone, among others) which link among each other. I can't imagine how a long-outdated list could possibly be useful, nor what actual article would link to it (other than, say, Results of 2000 census). --Calton 05:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: I'm not sure what your point is. It's listed on List of reference tables and it's noteworthy data.  It's as current as census data permits so, again, I don't see what your point is.  If this is a means for complaining that the census data isn't taken every year...then this is the wrong way to go about that. Cburnett 06:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Hello? Perhaps you should address what I write, as opposed to what you believe. My points are listed above: it's 5-year-old employment data! This data is collected monthly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, making this list not only outdated but actually misleading. And, I repeat, what article is going to link to this? --Calton 06:50, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * How about UPDATING the data instead of deleting the article? Eh?  Cburnett 07:02, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Every month? Since you created this, isn't that your reponsonsibility? --Calton 08:10, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I created this? Dude, you need to step away from the computer.  The article under VFD WAS NOT created by me.  I've formatted it, but did not create it.  No one has the responsibility to update a page.  Wikipedia is a community effort.  Instead of wasting yours, mine, and others' time voting, how about you update the page when you feel like it?  YOU are the one unsatisfied with the date of the data so YOU are more than welcome to update it.  DO NOT pawn it off on others as their responsibility.  Do you even know what you're talking about? Cburnett 08:47, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, because you cannot think of a page to link on isn't a reason to delete (WP:DP). This list amongst other related lists are notable information, which makes it far from VFD. Cburnett 07:18, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, because you cannot think of a page to link on isn't a reason to delete: And neither can you, since you're dodging the question. What pages could this be linked to? And please provide a rationale for your hand-waving notable designation. --Calton 08:10, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I just added it to Demographics of the United States. And, hey, I'm not the one with the burden here.  You're the one voted to delete it and are currently out numbers 3 to 1. Cburnett 08:47, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Added to List of U.S. states by unemployment rate. Cburnett 08:49, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems like good information for an encyclopedia. I guess I don't get whats wrong with it. K1Bond007 06:36, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's an encyclopedic topic, and the info could be brought to date with a little research. As for what might link to it, how about articles on related topics? Unemployment and Demographics of the United States come to mind. &mdash; &#1051;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1081; | &#x263a; 07:37, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * An external link to the BLS or some other source seems more sensible to me. --Calton 08:10, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even not updated info would be of historical interest. / up+land 08:56, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, I agree with the points made by Uppland and User:Livajo. Mgm|(talk) 11:35, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable data, and its common for even five-year-old information to be used in this way, since there hasn't been a nationwide census taken since. If more recent data is available, then someone can add it. 23skidoo 15:29, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've updated this data with the Bureau of Labor Statistics 2003 geographic profile of employment. --Plutor 16:39, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mountains of statistical data are published by governments at all levels.   You can cut this data many different ways, by geography, by income, by race, by gender, etc, etc, almost without limit.  All or most of these tabulations are potentially of interest to someone.  They are NOT encyclopedia articles in themselves.   If there were an article on, say, Variation between U.S. States in Employment, this data would be interesting in that article.  One might also expect to read various theories about the reasons for the variation.   But just a raw tabulation of data from the decennial census or monthly BLS statistics is not an encyclopedia article.  Wikipedia is not a statistical database.  --BM 16:59, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * This is one list in a set of lists by state. No one is proposing to make this a statistical database.  And unemployment isn't an obscure statistic to have.  You're argument is a slippery slope and therefore fallacious. Cburnett 19:11, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with BM above, Wikipedia is not a statistical database. JoaoRicardo 17:28, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Another un-maintainable list, and Wikipedia is not a statistical database. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  19:46, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * It was based on the 2000 census and there hasn't been another census since. I guess it is the fault of the article another census hasn't been performed.  Besides, your point is moot.  The article has been linked and updated anyway. Cburnett 20:03, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Impossible to keep updated enough to be worthwhile. Either way, it's just a pile of statistics, which I doubt are terribly useful together (though unemployment rates on the pages of the individual states may well be). --InShaneee 20:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * And the list can serve as a source for those numbers. Each state can reference the list.  Much better than listing a source in 50 places (the link could change).  The list also serves to consolidate the data.  It's funny you say it's impossible to maintain yet people update 2004 in film & 2005 in film at least weekly to update new grosses for movies.  It's not impossible, just not done.  Besides, with a source link on List of U.S. states by unemployment rate a visitor can get up-to-date data if they so desire. Cburnett 20:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as an unmaintainable list. Replace with a link out to the appropriate subpage of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics webpage.  (Perhaps ?)  We should not attempt to be a statistical database.  We should link to those who do provide that service well.  Rossami (talk) 22:00, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons given by Rossami. --Idont Havaname 22:47, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agreed w/ Rossami. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:27, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete, an unmaintainable statistical database. Megan1967 01:48, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Carrp 01:49, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Inherently encyclopedic.--Centauri 02:17, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Timestamp (2003) invalidates maintenance objections. Mikkalai 08:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * At 10 to 9 to delete, it would appear the dividing line between those that think it's unencyclopedic & those that think it is encyclopedic; and those that think this list makes wikipedia a statistical database & those that think it is not. I think it is necessary to note that the merits of statistics is not listed on What Wikipedia is not nor Deletion policy, ergo it's not grounds for deletion.  I think it is also necessary to note that other pages (2004 in film, 2005 in film) have a much higher degree of volatility yet are maintained, ergo "unmaintainability" is necessarily groundless as the article has been updated after being noticed it needed updating.  Cburnett 20:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I consider this article to be a violation (however well-intentioned) of What Wikipedia is not case 3 - a "mere collection of public domain or other source material".  This information is copied directly from the US Labor Dept statistics.  The link is even provided right on the page.  Comment 2: The timestamp does not, in my opinion, invalidate the maintenance concerns.  The title of this article is not 2003 list of US states... .  Even if you did change it, that's not what the articles linking in are trying to find.  Comment 3:  "200x in film" articles are not actually more volatile than this in the long term.  They have more current edits this year but once the year's over, they will become highly stable.  This article never will.  This is an article which will have to be maintained year in and year out.  If no alternative were available, we might have to accept that cost.  However, an easy alternative is available - the link to the US Labor Dept report.  No change of vote.  Rossami (talk) 01:56, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that there won't be 2006 in film to update next year and 2007 in film the year after that.....that these articles just stop? I hadn't heard of the movie industry foreclosing at a definite point in time.  I'm also confused as to your using part 3 of the link which says "other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, un-modified wording."  Maybe I'm just a dunce here, but are you saying that unemployment rates aren't useful in a modified form?  Having just spent no less than 5 minutes trying to find the numbers, I can't possibly see why it shouldn't be desired to have a copy of the numbers of wikipedia.  (This is not where I'm a dunce with nearing my 3rd engineering degree and whom I can think of only a hand full of other equal or more computer savvy users.  The BLS site is just hard to navigate.)  From the linked page on the article, it takes 3 sequential clicks to get to data as displayed in the article.  Even then it's preformatted text in a table form.  This article improves the readability of the data and sorts it.  Cburnett 07:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The full text of the criterion you cite is "Mere collections of public domain or other source material; such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, un-modified wording. Small or otherwise for the context critical source material, either in text or image form, is needed. (But of course, there's nothing wrong with using public domain resources in order to add factual content and wording to an article -- such as the use of the 1911 encyclopedia)" This rule was certainly not made to exclude every public domain collection of data that can be found elsewhere, but probably to prevent things more suitable for WikiSource from appearing here. For example, list of countries by area is pretty much public domain raw data with a few explanatory notes about it, and a version of the same list could easily be found and linked to on some other article, but there is nothing about the subject matter or the data itself that makes it unencyclopedic and no reason to kick it off of Wikipedia. I think the same goes for this article. &mdash; &#1051;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1081; | &#x263a; 16:38, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I should have been clearer. If we were, in fact, using the Labor Dept numbers in a modified form or using them as illustration in a larger article, that might be a reason to keep them.  However, I do not believe that we are modifying the raw data or even the presentation of the data in any meaningful way.  That is, of course, a judgment call and reasonable people can disagree.  This page still feels to me like a raw data dump, not what I expect of an encyclopedia article.  Rossami (talk) 17:30, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.