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. Would userfy upon request for continued work in userspace. czar ⨹ 20:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World Price Index

[edit]

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

Article produced by spammer pushing one company's product NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a concept not a product, WPI is a way to calculate PPP exchange rates as per the methodology on the page. I have worked with NeilN ^{talk to me} to address all of his concerns and feel that deletion of this page -which has proved very popular would limit the freedom of knowledge sharing into the private/corporate domain only. It does not make any mention to any companies other than the organisation who uses this method to produce data, as found in the sources/notes/references section of the page. EdmundIJones (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EdmundIJones: The single source you provided is from the same organization that created this index. As I mentioned on your talk page, we need multiple independent sources for WP:GNG. I found brief mentions of this WPI in news reports but nothing substantial. I also found mentions of another World Price Index. [1] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I've given up, I tried my best to share a bit of transparent knowledge which is unattributed to a specific organisation that a lot of people have found interesting on Wikipedia and all I get is hassle. If you feel that you would like to delete the page, go ahead, it's harming other peoples knowledge intake, not mine. I'll leave it with you guys to decide what is best. Although, you may like to query other indexes featured on Wikipedia such as the Big Mac Index as that is certainly a product from the Economist. I'm going to leave it in your hands from now. EdmundIJones (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EdmundIJones: In case you wish to continue - the Big Mac Index is a good example. Look how many recent independent sources there are describing it in some detail: [2] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added 6 additional significant and reliable sources such as the Huffington Post news coverage and CTV News and the Global Banking & Finance Review, all of which are completly independent and are very well known. Hopefully these show "notability"

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Jones, you have added sources, but not references. Take a look at Referencing to see how to turn the sources into references. Each positive statement of fact in the article needs to be referenced, similar to how you would reference a citation in a journal. Each reference needs a title and, if appropriate, an author and a date. Adding more un-referenced sources is not going to improve the article since the facts therein are not verifiable by others. LaMona (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy so that appropriate references can be added and formatted. LaMona (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) @ 15:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:51, 29 November 2014 (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.