Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South America Life Quality Rankings


 * 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   speedy delete. CSD G7 v/r - TP 17:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

South America Life Quality Rankings

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article seems to have been created with the purpose of replicating the content of several lists and rankings in one place, with the sole distinction of being focused on a single continent (South America). The result is, as one would expect, a massive content forking which is made unreadable and hard to maintain by its sheer size, without adding anything to Wikipedia. For the same reasons, I am also nominating these pages which were split from the nominated article:
 * Nero the second (talk) 01:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nero the second (talk) 01:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nero the second (talk) 01:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep

This article was created after extensively looking into Wikipedia for specific South America Rankings related to Life Quality and Development. Information and charts which are periodically required by institutions such as all American and foreign Embassies in South America to be able to provide on-line serious and verifiable information to several requestors interested in knowing more about South America and their specific different countries.

The closest thing to what it was been looking for was the article Economy of South America, article with similar structure but just economic oriented and not “human level” oriented as this new article which considers parameters such as Human Development Index HDI, Health, Education, Gender equality, Environment, Society sustainability, Law and justice, Press freedom, Corruption, Income equality, etc., and which is trying to consider also the trend of each variable during the past years and during the present decade (2010-2020). By the way, the mentioned Economy of South America has existed since 2005 not knowing that anybody has ever asked for its deletion, but unfortunately, this 6 years old article lacks of adequate structure, quality and presentation level, and most important, from appropriate description of sources and data. Please check the mentioned article for a fair comparison, and most important, for objective "precedent" consideration purposes.

A big effort was done in creating this new article and to include multiple alternative parameters, to be able to offer a multivariable and human-level perspective of present Life Quality and Development in this growing continent, where several countries should reach the "developed" status during this decade (2010-2020).

After gathering as many internationals parameters as possible, and always looking for alternatives to be un-biased (hopefully having at least two well-know and verifiable rankings about every single topic), and spending a lot of time on data verification and also in data processing to enrich Wikipedia numerical information whit so far non existing specific South America calculations and analysis, this article has been taking form.

The article grew to a point where it was necessary to split it for a better reading and easier navigation. Splitting process that has not ended yet in order to accomplish the "very long" tag requirement. Probably two more sub-articles splitting may be required; Health and Education.

Close to 400 million South Americans are looking for sources to monitoring their respective countries development processes, and so are doing local and international organizations, and this article has become one of the best sources where to find so many specific, well-presented and verifiable information.

About the fact that the majority of this information exists somewhere else, that is a fact shared with almost all articles in Wikipedia (no one has ever invented the wheel in here), but in this case what already existed was just massive worldwide data articles but not the specific South America oriented rank calculations and presentation, which is one of the most appreciated benefits for some Wikipedia readers, professionals the most, which is to find very specific information offered in the most friendly and fast-understanding format, which means real an updated figures, tables and maps presented in a appropriate structure and logical sequence. Nevertheless, relevant new information and individual-level calculations have been added to Wikipedia through these articles with new processed and verified data that did not exist in any other article before.

About the point if this article is "adding anything to Wikipedia" or not, I think that we should be open-minded and democratic and let Wikipedia readers to decide that (this objective parameter can be checked reviewing the "Page view statistics"), in which case we can find thousands of permanent and very old articles which considerable less daily-average-viewers than this relatively new article considered as a whole (the 3 present nominated articles; 1 main and 2 sub-articles so far).

Southamerica2010 (talk) 03:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 09:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Not only is this an unnecessary content fork and a completely unmanageable article, the author has got the bit between his teeth and is creating even more like this. The latest is South America Life Quality Rankings - Education which should also be included in this AfD. andy (talk) 14:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment

The new "creation", as it was referred above, is just a consequence of the will to obey and to accomplish the "very long" tag requirement left in October in the original article, and it meant a reduction in that original one.

About if all this information, related to human level development in a continent that affect almost 400 million habitants, is really "necessary" or not, well I suppose that for a lot of people like me is more necessary than the article of "The Big Bang Theory" (I'm a fan too) which is also basically a content fork of non numerical "trivial" information about "fictional" characters, information that can be found in hundreds of other websites, blogs and similar. On the other hand, I invite you to find at least just one alternative internet-source with similar multivariable and so useful information for human development policies creation or development monitoring in South America than this article that was proposed to be deleted. Unless that it were more important to the world and to Wikipedia as an Encyclopedia if Penny is still dating Leonard in the real life. If information about one trivial USA TV sitcom is more relevant than the multivariable monitoring of South America "human" development, then I think that this disgusting discriminatory approach should be officially communicated to the world by Wikipedia creators, and especially to all South American and BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) governments and inhabitants. I would like to see their reaction now, but I don’t want to see their reciprocity actions in 20 more years.

I believe that people who vote here should really perform a more serious and deep analysis of the articles they are commenting, and take more time than they probably spent watching and re-watching “The Big Bang Theory“ (sitcom) episodes. They should also compare the nominated ones with thousands of other present and very old articles whit objectively dubious encyclopedic benefit (see trivial The Big Bang Theory) or with similar structures (see poor quality Economy of South America) or with higher sizes (see more than 225k bytes France), but which curiously have never been nominated for deletion. But I don't even say that the last ones must be delete instead, since, and of course respecting some basic decency, moral and logical rules, it should be real Wikipedia "readers" who decide, and I'm not talking about the bunch of internet-fan´s to use to comment and decide in here (me included) but about normal-life "readers" who have never created, corrected or voted-for-deletion an article, but who seriously use this information in their real lives in ways that would probably change the facts will see published here in the future.

Southamerica2010 (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and could you please stop spamming this mess of a list in every South America country article? The "see also" section is meant to provide useful links related to the article at hand, not a free advertising space for someone's pet articles.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi "eh bien mon prince". I see in your page that you have intervened in several topics about South American countries, so I conclude you are "somehow" interested in the matter. Is there some fact from the rankings or their objective values that personally bothers you that much to do such ad-hominem comments and to be interested in deleting these articles? Could you exactly inform all of us where have I enriched any "see also" section in any article that had no real relation with the matter? Thanks in advance.

Southamerica2010 (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, there are already dozens of lists on all kinds of topics and they all include south American countries already. Keeping them all in one place is not an improvement.--Deeweee (talk) 07:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I’ll have to insists in the need that people who vote here really take the time to study the article, and most important, the precedents.

Even though several world rankings already exist in other articles, some does not exists as the Sustainable Society Index, others does not include all South American countries; as in Education (which is probably the most debated topic in this continent at this moment), where PISA results presented in article Programme for International Student Assessment does not include any South American country at all, and if the discriminatory answer would be, but the link to the original and complete source exists, then all Wikipedia articles should be only References list, since almost 99% of the existent article’s information exists in or come from other sources. Other existent rankings have figures at a country level and not at an individual level. And again, this article has created several new ranks that did not exist before, as the Export Import Surplus per capita (human level parameter), and also several time-evolution indexes.

But based on the so weak and/or lousy arguments presented so far for its deletion, there’s no other option than to conclude the following:


 * Discrimination issue involved - based on precedents

When I first created this article (which was just one piece at the beginning and which had to be split obeying the “very long” tag requirement), and as a lawyer, I took the time to deeply check, based on precedents, if what I was going to create was according to Wikipedia de-facto accepted practices, and since I found several examples as the already mentioned poor quality, incomplete, un-updated and not human-level oriented Economy of South America, which exists since 2005, and very particulary the "Financial and social rankings of sovereign states in Europe", which is kind of an "Europe" version of the nominated article(s) that has existed since 2003, which is un-updated, which has 1/5 of the daily average viewer and which curiously has never been nominated for deletion in this 8 years, I concluded based on those precedents and objective primordial justice and "equality" precepts that it was totally correct to create some especific South-America human-level rankings article.

So, at this point and based on the so urgent nomination for deletion of an article just created in May 2011, the existence of so many precedents of old specific-continent-rankings articles like this one, and the lack of deep and serious analysis and arguments from the people who has voted for its deletion, the only logic explanations at this moment is either that some undeniable discrimination to certain countries or group of countries aroused, or worst either, that some  political or nationalist operators are trying to hide to their countries' inhabitants facts their governments or political organizations don’t want them to know and realize.

Southamerica2010 (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you want to nominate that list for deletion, you have my support.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete all as un-navicable content forks. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you specify “why” it is un-navigable?.

Since, and thanks to “eh bien mon prince”, who provided this link to Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions to all of us, and which “Nutshell” states:

So and accordingly, we should “avoid short one-liners” (Nutshell 2).

By the way, what “eh bien mon prince” did was exactly what the "Nutshell" recommend not to do, “Avoid short one-liners or simple links (including to this page)”', which also proves what I’ve insisted before, that some people who votes here does not really read the articles they are voting since in this case they didn’t even read the article-arguments they are using, but in fact we have seen just “short lines” and links, but nobody has really provide “solid arguments” (Nutshell 1) by “explaining why this article does or does not meet specific criteria, guidelines or policies” (Nutshell 3).

And talking about provide arguments as I have always done in here and coming back to the navigation issue:

First, as the majority of Wikipedia articles this article provides an index in “Contents”, so you could jump to any specific section at will.

Second, there’s no problem to use it in any normal Desktop or Notebook at all, unless you are talking about some sort of museum unit, in which case you should have navigation problems with all the bigger articles as USA, Russia, France, etc. Do we have to delete those articles then since your hardware is inappropriate to open them? I’ve seen this article used in Ipads 1 even, again with no problem. But of course if you are a gadget’s fan and want to read it in some sort of wrist-watch computer, then I suppose it would be more difficult.

Third, if you have problems in your device with the Tables and Maps in this article(s), then you’ll have it in all pages with them. That’s not an article problem but your device problem. Are those Tables and Maps hard to load and do they have visual problems in some devices, well, then that is a Wikipedia-programming improvement opportunity, not an article’s reason to be deleted.

Southamerica2010 (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your querulous nattering is not adding anything to the discussion. If you want those lists to be kept, just provide a sensible argument for why they should be.--Nero the second (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2011 (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.