Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 greatest performances of all time


 * 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   Early close (speedy delete). Elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 15:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

100 greatest performances of all time

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is a copy of a magazine article. Unencyclopedic, unsourced, and non-notable. ~EdGl  &#9733;  21:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- --Darkwind (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Not unsourced ("From the April 6 Edition of Premiere Magazine, 2006"), but pretty well a blatant copy of a four year old magazine article. If the list itself was notable enough that it was referred to independently by other sources, it would still need to be limited to a brief summary and a link -- not all 100 of the entries on someone else's list.  Generally, "100 greatest ______ of all time" lists sell some more magazines and ad space, but are quickly forgotten.  If kept, it needs some context about how the list was put together.  Mandsford (talk) 22:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Isn't this a copyright violation? --agr (talk) 04:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Un-encyclopaedic and subjective list taken from a magazine with no criteria for inclusion. Malcolma (talk) 10:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete There's not much to say that hasn't been said already; it's a straight-up copy of an opinion piece in a magazine. G-Flex (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as an indiscriminate list of information that provides little if any benefit to the reader without some sort of context in which it is used. It would be suitable to use the external link of the magazine article as a reference to back up a claim made in a related article but, as it stands, it's an unencyclopedic cut-and-paste. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:21, 29 April 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.