Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Best Places to Work in America


 * 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 Duja ► 10:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

100 Best Places to Work in America

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

non-encyclopedic list copied from the Fortune Magazine article Ewlyahoocom 02:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Have removed the 2006 list completely so eliminating the copyright objection. It has been replaced with the winner from each year which is more notable.  Colonel Warden 20:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as a copyvio; I can't see how such a list can be presented as an "in your own words" composition.   Acroterion  (talk)  03:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete not much to say. Mac   OS X  06:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Charts of this sort usually get extensive coverage in other news media and so notability should be easy to establish.  Since it is an annual chart, the full list from 2006 is not ideal content.  Better to show the top ten from each year, say, and this would be fair use to address the copyright concern.  Just needs more work.  AFD is not cleanup Colonel Warden 08:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above - copyvio re-hash. Peter Fleet 10:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * delete How is this list encyclopedic. Is there some sort of universally agreed on standard for ranking. Also are we going to update it every year. Ridernyc 10:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * comment There are many pages that require update every year - elected officials, trophy winners, etc. This is a notable award ranking of notable companies by a notable publication and so credible enough to be here.  Colonel Warden 11:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Blatent copyvio and hard to maintain. This is not what wikipedia is for. ff m  13:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I couldn't care less about the copyvio aspects, but the list as a list is inherently massively POV and constantly changing; if it is about Fortune's list, then I am equally skeptical that it deserves remembering (is there really as much coverage of Fortune's list as there is of say a generic bestselling boook) or a place as a page and not, say, a category. --Gwern (contribs) 16:14 24 October 2007 (GMT)
 * Comment What have best-selling books got to do with it?  This may not have the pop-culture impact of the Oscars, say, but businessmen seem to care about it.  For example, see this Senate testimony.  Note also that there is an independent organisation which validates the award and that similar lists have been sponsored for other countries, e.g. the Sunday Times does one for the UK and the EU sponsored one for Europe.  The US list now has a web page at CNN.  FWIW, Google won in 2007.  The article just needs work to generalise and update it.  AFD is not cleanup.  Colonel Warden 17:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, copyright violation of Fortune magazine's intellectual property. Corvus cornix 18:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I wouldn't mind an article about the list, if such an article could be written, including trivia and stuff, e.g. Enron was #22 in 2001 -- the same year it filed for bankruptcy, cf. Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue. But just the list from a single year dumped on a page? No. Ewlyahoocom 18:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep, noting that it has been substantially revised since nomination. Evidence of notability (i.e. someone besides its publishers caring about this) is still lacking. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Extremely weak keep if only for historical purposes. The article itself seems to be valid... kind of... but it's borderline in a big way.--WaltCip 14:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, listcruft from a magazine article. Doctorfluffy 03:28, 29 October 2007 (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.