Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cook Partisan Voting 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cook Partisan Voting Index

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

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

There seems to be a number of sources that use information from the Index, but virtually no sources about the Index, indicating that the Cook Partisan Voting Index is not independently notable. Cortador (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

retain: there are enough varied sources discussing this index in different ways, another example: ^[1]

References

^ Paul, M., Zhang, R., Liu, B. et al. State-level political partisanship strongly correlates with health outcomes for US children. Eur J Pediatr 181, 273–280 (2022).

HudecEmil (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with these sources is that they utilise the CPVI without being about it. Cortador (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

retain: There are several seemingly independent sites about the index, but also---if an article describes the index in detail, even if it's not about the index, doens't that satisfy notability? AriTheHorse 23:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you don't need a source to explicitly be about something to be SIGCOV. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's plenty of coverage about the index, for example [1]. This is a widely-used metric for covering elections (cited by almost everyone who analyzes US elections, even though most of its mentions don't go into much coverage) and deletion would not benefit our readers at all. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. AryKun (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We need to be careful not to conflate notability with sources that cite Index reports (as both sources presented here so far do) as against those that analyse the Index. So, for example a source such as this [2] indicating that the PVI influenced their own Index would count towards notability (albeit this is a passing mention). I suspect that there's enough out there describing the Index with SIGCOV, but we need to see those sources, rarther than just flooding this with examples of reports about PVI reports. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The cited references are more than enough to establish notability. Owen× ☎ 17:36, 25 November 2023 (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.

[1] Paul, M., Zhang, R., Liu, B. et al. State-level political partisanship strongly correlates with health outcomes for US children. Eur J Pediatr 181, 273–280 (2022).

[1]