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, tending towards keep. Stifle (talk) 11:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Theoretically interesting, but otherwise useless list of Gini coefficients of states. Only .1 separates most socialist state from most capitalist (?) state. They aren't the states you'd expect. DC is worst. Alaska and Wyoming are among the "best." But so what? This stand-alone list is of no obvious use to anyone. Nor does it claim to be!It is well-meaning, I suppose, but to what intent? Wikipedia is WP:NOT#STATS. Student7 (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC) Student7 (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as a person interested in economics. It certainly isn't raw economic data as the person above states for deletion. It meets every criteria for a list. Also note that the nominator is also voting for deletion, a double dip, just like the economy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To the two users above: (1) Please refrain from striking through the comments of other users [1]. (2) If you are a nominator of an article, the proper form is to say "Delete, as nominator" so as to avoid confusion. At first glance, it appeared that the nom was withdrawing the nomination, which is not the case. Mandsford 14:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can nominate or you can !vote, but you can't double dip. And I don't have the right to delete the !vote, so we have a strikethough for the double dipping. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You must really stop censoring other editors remarks. I am not censoring yours. You imagine this is a "vote." It is not. Please read the germane policy. The first word merely summarizes what is in the remainder of the sentence. And this is not "two users." This is one editor that is doing this. Student7 (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or merge into Gini coefficient. This is a table, not an article, and I can't imagine becoming even a stub anytime soon. If this were the subject of treatises and other secondary sources, I'd favor inclusion as a separate article. But as it is, while interesting, does not make an article. Bearian (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't an article, it is a list. We don't as a rule merge data into large articles, we break it out into a standalone list. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Consider Rename to List of U.S. states by Gini coefficient The list tracks an encyclopedic topic backed by appropriate sources and a search of "Gini coefficient United States" in Google News Archive turns up hundreds of references that could be used to expand the article further. The parent article covers the subject on a global basis and would be less appropriate to include subnational data in that article. The title for this list should be renamed to correspond to the title of the parent article. Alansohn (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. But the article fails to expand it. It is merely a list. Student7 (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is not polemical and relates to an established concept of economic science. Merger to Gini coefficient, suggested above, is a highly unsatisfactory outcome — extremely America-centric. Carrite (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Merging might be inappropriate seeing that the state figures are so similar anyway. The national figure should suffice. Student7 (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a properly sourced list of interesting data. −Woodstone (talk) 07:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Interesting how? It has no WP:RELY commentary to place that into perspective.
Keep Gini coefficient is a standard measure of income inequality; the nomination seems to be challenging whether it is meaningful to compare the states at all. If it is meaningful to compare countries then it is meaningful to compare states, provinces, counties, metropolitan areas, or whatever. The article could be improved by providing standard errors. --Mathstat (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From the linked page: "If a Wikipedia editor refers to a list as listcruft, it indicates that the editor believes one or more of the following" (emphasis mine) --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 01:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK let me rephrase: only a few (if any) might possibly be construed to apply. So the point for removal is weak. −Woodstone (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.