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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Economist special reports list[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Listcruft. A list of not particularly remarkable inserts released every fortnight by a news magazine (even if it's the Economist) fits the definition of "indiscriminate or trivial list" pretty well. eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A trivial list, not of encyclopaedic value. Anyone who wants to know what "special reports" the Economist has issued can look on the Economist's website. What is more, their list is more likely to be up to date than ours. It is really difficult to see what useful purpose this article could serve. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article was deleted following an uncontested PROD, over four months ago. It was restored following a request from a user who, having seen the restored article, now agrees that it is not worth keeping. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trivial list agreed. content could be found on the website, besides does not serve any encyclopedic other than serving as a promotion for The Economist. -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 11:31, 15 May 2012 (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.