Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of North American regions by life expectancy

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. I see a consensus here to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

List of North American regions by life expectancy

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

List of North American regions by life expectancy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Prod contested. List is original research and synthesis - extracted data in form not present in secondary, reliable sources. Fails WP:NLIST. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, Canada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, United States of America, and North America. Goldsztajn (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• I've stated my point of view at the article's talk page. Though the data in the source database were filtered and simple calculations were made, these transformations are obvious and easily verified. All data in the Wikipedia's page are in the source database or can be easily obtained by an obvious mathematical operation.

It's like retelling a text in your own words. When a Wikipedia editor retells a text, he does not retell the whole text but only a part of it. The same way, a Wikipedia editor has not obligation to use necessarily all records in an original dataset - only a part of it can be used. — Lady3mlnm (talk) 07:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Don't see any need for this type of list . Agletarang (talk) 12:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
• Not delete by according to my arguments on the article's talk page. Рулин (talk) 12:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. So, User:Lady3mlnm and User:Рулин, I assume you are arguing for Keep here? How would you respond to the nomination statement? Please put your arguments here rather than on the article talk page so the discussion is in one place.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NLIST. What an odd page. APK hi :-) (talk) 04:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep At the request of Liz, this is summary of what I've written above and at the article's talk page.

This is a stand-alone list based on an authoritative reliable secondary source (that we can assume itself based on set of independent reliable sources), which has significant coverage and independent of the subject. Source of information is given and data can be verified. Filtering of records based on obvious criteria, routine calculations, and sorting based on indicated logical principle can't be considered as original research. Users are free to apply their own sorting by the table tool. There is also no contradiction with WP:NOT. So though the article is not great, I don't see enough reasons for deletion.

The list contains evaluation of life expectancy in regions of many countries that doesn't have their separate pages about this topic. The principle of region comparison is not an original research by itself, but presentation of data, within the framework of the encyclopedia tools, that allows people to do their own independent conclusion. So I consider the article as valuable page of Wikipedia. — Lady3mlnm (talk) 10:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment There's a confusion here between WP:SECONDARY and WP:PRIMARY sources. The material that the article is based upon is not a secondary source, it is a database (Global Data Lab). That database offers no: analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources (WP:SECONDARY). Notability of all articles is dependent on the existence of secondary sourcing. The author of the article has extracted information from the database to create the article, hence original research. There is no indication that the database in and of itself is notable. There is no secondary sourcing which compares the subnational administrative units of North America by life expectancy. I did request for secondary sources to be added which would satisfy WP:NLIST, but none were identified. I did find a source which compares subnational units of the USA and Canada (Demography: Analysis and Synthesis, Four Volume Set: A Treatise in Population p.210), but could find nothing else. FWIW, previous consensus has been to delete these list types of subnational unit articles in the absence of specific sourcing satisfying NLIST: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first-level administrative divisions by country. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - a very useful (if not shocking) list. This seems to be well-sourced on the referenced Wikipedia pages. I'm not seeing what the issue is. Nfitz (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete The "see also" on this page lists pages that cover this information better than is found here. Some have considerable analysis, some less; some have a large number of references, some only a few. However, it does seem to me that it only makes sense to create a list for all of North America if there is some interesting comparative data beyond just the numbers. If some should be added, then this list might be useful. Also, this is all very recent (2019-) so it lacks real historical data. Lamona (talk) 04:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails NLIST. Databases like the source are not secondary and we do not have evidence that this particular intersectional ranking has been the topic of SIGCOV, so the grouping is also OR. JoelleJay (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete largely per JoelleJay. Fails WP:NLIST due to lack of SIGCOV as a group. Also much of this list is redundant of List of North American countries by life expectancy and country-specific lists of regions (e.g. List of U.S. states and territories by life expectancy). Those lists may or may not also fail NLIST, but are not the topic of this discussion. Frank Anchor 02:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR. Plainly stated: an article based entirely on a single primary source is the same as original research, and in this case is borderline copyright infringement. You’re just repeating the same data, but in a fancy table. That’s why we require three or more independent and reliable sources with deep discussions of the data. Bearian (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2024 (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.