Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Greatest Britons (2nd nomination)


 * 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) Wine Guy  ~Talk  09:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

100 Greatest Britons
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No signs of notability (WP:N) from multiple, reliable sources (WP:RS). The only sources are from the BBC, who also compiled the list. ' ArticlesFor Redemption  '' 00:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, several WP:RS cover it, see Gnews results here; for example see a full Guardian article and a full Telegraph article. -- Cycl o pia talk  00:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's ridiculous to treat the BBC like a blog suspected of "self-promotion"... AnonMoos (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And furthermore, the deletion nomination would be much more credible if the nominator could come up with something not already discussed the first time around... AnonMoos (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete No lasting importance. Reprinting the list is a copyright violation. However the list as posted on the BBC's site could be used as a reference in articles on each listed person, then people would not miss out on it. Also could be an external link or mentioned in BBC. p.s The BBC certainly does engage in self-promotion, not to do so would be irresponsible of them. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Change to "Weak Delete" since sources have been cited. I'd like to repeat my comment from the "100 Worst Britons" AFD discussion: News media outlets will always comment on what other news media outlets do, but this does not make for the kind of lasting importance WP strives for. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that we cannot know what will be of lasting importance and what will be not. To do such a judgement is to apply a POV on the subject. -- Cycl o pia talk  16:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. However somehow we must make that kind of decision or else WP becomes just a digest of everything that is printed by any "notable source." Steve Dufour (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WP's aim is to be a digest of everything that has been covered by reliable sources. You make it sound wrong, but it is actually a positive achievement. We must not make this kind of decision: we must be sure content satisfies WP:GNG and doesn't go against WP:NOT and other policies, but that's it. Storage space is cheap. Please have a look at WP:NOTPAPER. -- Cycl o pia talk  23:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Covered in the broadsheets; notably the Telegraph, Guardian, Daily Mail.. intellectual content. This has already been covered. StiffyAdams (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep a notable programme when broadcast with response from the public and national UK media. MilborneOne (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nominator's statement that there is not coverage in multiple reliable sources appears to be incorrect. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – Notable programme covered by more than just the BBC when broadcast, as mentioned by User:StiffyAdams. X X X antiuser eh? 05:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * SNOW Doc Quintana (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - the status of the nominator is now BLOCKED SatuSuro 04:13, 24 February 2010 (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.