Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Greatest Villains (Wizard magazine)


 * 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 -- JForget 01:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

100 Greatest Villains (Wizard magazine)
This article is basically nothing, it lacks notability, content, importance, and ontop of all that the content it has is very unencyclopedic, I certainly don't think this warrants a wikipedia article. Blueanode (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * comment might this not infringe the copyright of Wizard magazine? If so, it should be speedy deleted. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The last 90 villians were snipped off to minimize copyvio concerns. I think this is covered, but I am not an expert on this issue. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I doubt it's a copyvio, since the list was in the July '06 issue, and this is the type of thing that magazines want to be noticed for and quoted from, hence, not copyrighted. I agree with nom, however, that it's unencylopedic. Essentially, it's a description of an article in a magazine that most people have never heard of, let alone read. Mandsford (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * While I cannot make a case for keeping this, I'm leaving a merge proposal on Talk:Wizard (magazine) to see if editors there think it is worth incorporating into that article. If the list is determined to be a serious copyright infringement, the merge can be called off. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I am the creator of the article. It was my first wikipedia article and was more of an experiment than anything else. ArdClose (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per ArdClose, and notability concerns. -FrankTobia (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. A list in a magazine is unlikely to be notable unless it's of some major significance. Having said that, I have no objection to a merge on this one. It's just that third-party sources about this particular list are very unlikely to exist.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 05:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per ArdClose. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2008 (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.