Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State of World Liberty 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 no consensus. Proto  ►  12:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

State of World Liberty Index

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable list of countries and their "liberty." Has no reliable sources or references to the "index". Appears to have been made up by one person and it fails WP:NFT. Earlier prod deleted. Selket Talk 19:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete . The first problem I have with this here is that it's been covered (at least, so says the article), but there's nothing to back it up.  The second part I have is that it's also rather opinionated - as it comes from a Libertarian POV, it is going to be easy to violate WP:NPOV here.  I think, though, that if the first problem is taken care of, eventually the second problem will take care of itself.  Solve the first one and I'll change my mind.  --Dennisthe2 00:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My vote has changed to Keep. Notability and verifiability are established, but there's that pesky POV thing.  Clean it up. --Dennisthe2 20:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. First of all, let me say that the index itself (and not the article) is quite POV (see here for methodology).  That being said, here are two sources that have cited it:  and . -- Black Falcon 00:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think I can work with this. Changing the vote.  Let's put these links on there.
 * Delete It seems to have a strong POV to capitalist based western living, in that its point bases is based on people being able to do capitalist things such as personally buying land, that simply don't apply in other ecenomic based counteries. It seems to be a private (and poor) attempt at measuring living standards by captialist freedom. Reguardless of that, the web site itself does not pass WP:WEB and the index itself is not notable (mainly due to no one using it as per the above POV issues it has).--155.144.251.120 03:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks quite interesting to me.  But include a table, with flags, wiklinks, etc., to make the whole thing more visual, and easier to follow.  Turgidson 03:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I created this article in order to allow Wikipedia readers to access information which I feel is valuable and interesting.  Furthermore, the information presented is verifiable (by looking at the project webpage and looking at secondary sources, which can be found with a Google search).  Regarding the POV comments, please note Black Falcon's statement above that the Index is POV, not the article (just like an article about the Klu Klux Klan, for example). Also, the objections explicitly raised in the nomination are invalid:
 * The Index webpage is linked to multiple times in the article text and as an E.L... a pretty valid source when the question at hand is the content of the Index. (contra: "Has no reliable sources or references to the 'index'.")
 * The article certainly does not fail WP:NFT -- it is mentioned and cited by numerous sources.
 * However, an implicit objection was made which might be valid: non-notability. ("Appears to have been made up by one person".  Note, however, that the theory of relativity and Ulysses were made up by one person.)  I don't know on what criteria "notability" ought to be evaluated in this case, but I invite those editors who have not yet done so to read Arguments against deleting articles for non-notability before voting against the article on that basis (and also to perform a Google search and note the numerous references to the Index).  D a v e R u n g e r (t)⁄(c) 04:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Note also that Notability is not a specified requirement for Wikipedia articles.  Articles are only required to be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view, and this article meets all of those qualifications.  The "Notability" criterion which is often brought up in deletion discussions is done so (legitimately) usually because of concerns relating to the Verifiability requirement, but since the article only attempts to report on the contents of the Index (and these can be easily verified at the project webpage, which is linked from the article), such a non-notability criticism is not legitimate in this context.  D a v e R u n g e r (t)⁄(c) 04:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with your comments and have changed my "comment" to a "keep". -- Black Falcon 04:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per User:Turgidson. --Zelse81 23:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this article badly fails WP:NPOV currently due to the "Libretarian Philosophy" section. Also, Dave_Runger, please be aware that your arguments on the inclusion criteria are somewhat suspect.  First of all, while WP:NOTABILITY is not in itself an ABSOLUTE requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia, it is an ABSOLUTELY valid reason for deletion as well as a guideline accepted by the majority of Wikipedia editors for both purposes.  Further, google hits are not an accurate gauge of notability, they should only be used as anecdotal evidence in concert with other sources of information.  Also note that WP:ILIKEIT explains that "valuable and interesting" (as you and another have described the article in this discussion) are not themselves valid reasons for inclusion in Wikipedia.  Even if we momentarily accept the premise of your argument, this article still fails WP:V.  Sources must be from reliable, third-party published sources, especially in a case like this in which the subject matter concerns a global review and is based on other, similar lists (which do, by the way, satisfy WP:V). If sources are included, such as printed newspaper, magazine, and/or journal articles, and the WP:NPOV issue is addressed, I see no reason why this article needs to be deleted.  However as it stands right now, I have to say delete.  I can very easily create an index of similar sorts, that measures some arbitrary concept, find real research to back up my rankings, and calculate the index based on that evidence.  Then I could just as easily plant this information online, maybe spread it around a bit, have it cited by some blogs, create a wikipedia entry for it, and maybe submit it to Digg or Fark.  Even if I do all of these things, it would still not fit into an encyclopedia.--IRelayer 23:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How is the "Libertarian Philosophy" section POV? The index website itself says that it is libertarian-oriented.  The index was created by "Nick Wilson, an activist and co-founder of the Libertarian Reform Caucus, an organization working to turn the United States Libertarian Party into a viable political party".  That section is not stating anything that the website itself does not admit to.  -- Black Falcon 00:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The section has a point of view. It is not saying that the founder is Libretarian, or that the index is Libretarian, it is saying a combination of those things intended to put forth a point of view.  Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Even if this were not the case, I believe the article has further problems, thank you for only addressing one of them and ignoring the rest. --IRelayer 07:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no need for sarcasm. I still don't see how the section is POV.  "Pro-individual freedom, pro-economic freedom and pro-limited government stance" are, in fact, the very tenets of libertarianism.  If it quacks, walks, and looks like a duck, it's not POV to call it a duck.  However, to satisfy the concerns you've raised, I will replace it with a more neutral and better-sourced section tomorrow.  Also, I did not "ignore the rest", but rather focused on what I perceived to be the most important.  So, to reply to the other points you've raised:
 * WP:Notability is a guideline which I belive should be followed (my agreement with User:Dave Runger above was about the frequent conflation of notability and verifiability. However, this index is noted in a number of sources, which I will add to the article (again, tomorrow).  However, as a Google search will show, the index and its rankings are discussed by a number of sources (in my opinion unforunately as I believe the index to be a terrible cross-national indicator of "liberty").
 * WP:ILIKEIT. I'm not sure to whom you were referring, but I personally don't like the index.  In any case, this is a a criticism of "keep" votes rather than a reason to delete (and I think you have appropriately used it as the former).
 * WP:V is about "verifiability" rather than being "verified". Most of the information in the article is in fact already verified, and that which is not is certainly verifiable.
 * In all fairness, you did state that "If sources are included, such as printed newspaper, magazine, and/or journal articles, and the WP:NPOV issue is addressed, I see no reason why this article needs to be deleted." My comment was not intended to dismiss your arguments, but rather to try to understand why you perceived that section to be POV.  I hope you will take a look at the revised version of the article and re-evaluate your position in light of its new state.  Cheers, Black Falcon 07:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Yes, and in all fairness, I'm like to see these sort of things handled with tagging rather than AfD...but this isn't a perfect world. Black Falcon, thank you for your timely efforts to correct the article.  I believe this article now meets WP:V and WP:NPOV.  Notability is a different issue.--IRelayer 08:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong delete - subjective measurement will never be anything but POV. Espousing it as fact (or implying that it is valid) is beyond the scope of Wikipedia.  /Blaxthos 02:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No one is espousing that it is valid (or invalid). The index itself is POV, I agree, but it is notable and the article is not POV.  Please do not confuse the quality of the article with that of the index itself. -- Black Falcon 03:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - I cannot comment on the real notability or relevance of the index, but I find it an interesting ranking and it's hardly on an obscure topic so I think it's safe to say others would be interested as well. I strongly disagree with the POV issues: as has been pointed out already, the index may be biased but its article is neutral. Mushroom Pi 04:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My point was, that if I make up Selket's world technology index and rank all of the countries by their deployment of technology, Selket's world technology index doesn't deserve a wikipedia page because nobody reputable recognizes it. This has nothing to do with POV or validity of the index, my complaint is that this whole thing is published by some guy in his garage. --Selket Talk 07:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Selket, even if your analogy is a good one (and I'm not saying it is, as you might be hard-pressed to find as many sources citing Selket's world technology index as the number that cite the State of World Liberty Index), I fail to understand what would be so bad about having a Wikipedia article about something some guy published in his garage. This article only represents the subjective evaluation of the State of World Liberty Project's founder.  Therefore, his published views on the internet and citations of the Index by other sources is quite enough to establish verifiably that the Wikipedia article is, in fact, accurate in the claims it makes.  The Wikipedia article is written in a NPOV, even if the index is not.  Furthermore, the Wikipedia article is not a piece of original research. (The article merely reports on research/analysis done by the State of World Liberty Project, which in turn is based on the work of reputable organizations such as The Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal, Freedom HouseReporters Without Borders, etc.).  I believe that I have demonstrated that the article meets the three qualifications demanded of Wikipedia article.  Deletion votes seem to be based either on the erroneous belief that notability is a necessary quality of Wikipedia articles (though the Index might be "notable" anyhow) and a misunderstanding that a NPOV policy means that the subjects described in articles must have a NPOV.  This is utterly false; the articles themselves are, however, required to be written with no POV.  D a v e R u n g e r (t)⁄(c) 09:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Selket, if your Selket's world technology index was noted in multiple published sources (like this index), then yes, it should have a Wikipedia page. -- Black Falcon 17:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The standard is not "published sources", it's "reliable published sources." The two "news organizations" linked from the article are Aruzza (a self titled consulting company) and the Turkmenistan project. --Selket Talk 18:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * True, the standard is multiple, published, reliable sources. However, nothing you have indicated puts into question the reliability of the two sources (also, it's not the Turkmenistan project, but Eurasia.net).  In any case, how about these other sources: GlobalHRNews, Bank DnB Nord, a pro-democracy organisation, the American Latvian Association, a non-profit international "Chamber of Commerce", an Armenian news agency, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Latvia?  I think these should suffice.  -- Black Falcon 20:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete nonnotable agenda promotion. Wile E. Heresiarch 10:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. An index that offers no claim to notability or reliable sources by an organisation (State of World Liberty Project) that offers no claim to notability or reliable sources. Fails WP:V and WP:BIO as a product of the organisation. Nuttah68 11:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep 1,900,000 Google hits, looks notable enough. I found this article via a link from the North Korea article. (Not surprisingly, they rank last). The index itself is quite POV (not sure why Australia isn't in the top ten, we have plenty of freedom) but that doesn't mean the article about it should be deleted. --Candy-Panda 15:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have removed (rather than rewritten) the possibly POV section of the article and will make further changes (independent sourcing, additional information, etc.) shortly. -- Black Falcon 18:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My further 2 cents: The page is looking better and better!  Just keep on truckin'!   Turgidson 18:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have added 10 more sources (government and news reports) about the index to the article.  However, I am hesitant to continue working on the article until this AfD is finished.  There have been several comments about the article being POV, but no one has noted exactly where the POV is. -- Black Falcon 02:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per User:Nuttah68, not to mention its presentation of a very specific POV -- from the first sentence onward -- as if it were objective and factual. --Calton | Talk 02:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you please clarify, I'm very confused. I'm working on trying to improve the article and just can't see where the hell the POV in the article is.  The first paragraph is this:
 * "The State of World Liberty Index is a ranking of countries according to the degree of economic and personal freedoms which their citizens enjoy; each country is given a score between 0 and 100. The Index defines freedom as 'the ability for the individual to live their lives as they choose, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same.' Only one report (the 2006 State of World Liberty Index, released 12 August 2006) has yet been produced by the State of World Liberty Project, but the organization has stated that it will continue to release updated reports annually.[1] 159 countries were ranked in the 2006 report."
 * Where is the POV? It is a ranking of countries according to freedom.  Maybe it's not a good ranking, but it's a ranking nonetheless.  The definition of "freedom" is a quote.  And only one report has been produced--that's a fact as well.  I'm not sure where you see it as presented "as if it were objective and factual".  I do not think this is a good index, but I can't see what problem people are having with the article. -- Black Falcon 02:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Dave Runger. TheQuandry 18:12, 19 February 2007 (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.