Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Worst Britons


 * 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   no consensus.  Sandstein  07:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

100 Worst Britons

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No signs of notability (WP:N) from multiple, reliable sources (WP:RS). ' ArticlesFor Redemption  '' 23:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Again, Gnews results show RS coverage: e.g., , . -- Cycl o pia talk  00:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:COPYVIO. THF (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If reporting the list is indeed a copyvio, we can remove it from the article, but this has little to do with the article per se. -- Cycl o pia talk  12:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I can't see the point of deleting this, it's linked to by other pages (which is how I found it) so removing it detract from them. On notability: It is the result of a large public poll and therefore represents the viewpoint of a large number of Britons in 2003. That is interesting to some people. Will the historians of the future really thank you for stuffing everything you don't personally think notable into the memory hole? Roger Heathcote, London 20 Feb 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.0.25 (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Cyclopedia. Gamaliel (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, you got to undo my edits even here, huh? THF (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You've started and participated in one, maybe two dozen AfDs in the last couple of days. I've voted on ONE.  Get a grip. Gamaliel (talk) 02:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Article is lots of fun, but of no lasting notability. There are also no secondary sources. And, I know this is hard to grasp for some people, reprinting a list is really ripping off the hard work of those who created it. Let's do right by them and have an article Fun lists where we could link to the original sites of these lists.Steve Dufour (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There are secondary sources: see my comment above. And yes, it is hard to grasp for me how reprinting a mere list is a copyvio; even if it was, we can remove the list without removing the article. -- Cycl o pia talk  12:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked again and saw no secondary sources. No sources are cited in the article, but I see that you have provided links to news stories about the list. But really all they say is there is a list. This is not an item of lasting importance. Also I am not a lawyer, which is why I used the informal expression "ripping off" rather than "copyright violation." Steve Dufour (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I will soon start List of for-fun lists. Seriously. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have just sent this to AfD as it fails WP:TPA Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I voted keep. However every deletion is a victory. I have said before, and will say again, that 90% of WP should be deleted according to WP's own stated principles.Steve Dufour (talk) 04:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is your highly personal opinion. I refuse to accept that slashing 90% of an information resource can be seen as a "victory" of any sort, apart than for ignorance maybe, but YMMV. -- Cycl o pia talk  16:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. You are also entitled to your opinion. I see WP as an encyclopedia not just a place to store information. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems to be coverage in reliable sources. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Are there on going reliable sources about this list, or were they all around the time it was aired? If this list is kept, then it must be renamed to something more appropriate like Channel 4's list of the 100 Worst Britons as this really is the opinion of a tv channel and its views at the time, and not a set in stone list. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree, a rename is necessary. -- Cycl o pia talk  22:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * To answer Martin451's question, occasionally newspaper profiles will note that the person being profiled was on the '100 Worst Britons' list; there were three such profiles published in 2009. But there are no published articles which centre on the programme itself since 2003. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment News media will always comment on what other news media do. This does not give a news feature lasting importance. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:28, 19 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.