Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/200 Greatest Israelis


 * 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. I am not a copyright lawyer, my task here is merely to determine the result of this debate. Therefore any and all comments related to copyright were ignored and the issue of copyright was not considered while determining a result of this AFD. On top of that, arguments about the methodology or the quality of the poll are, as was rightly pointed out, not relevant. If there were sources discussing the methodology they could have been used to add such content to the article, so that is also not a valid argument and was not considered. Which brings us, like the vast majority of deletion debates, to the subject of notability. On that front, it appears to me that those advocating deletion have made the stronger argument. That the poll was published in a notable publication does not make the poll itself notable. As with any other topic, significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject is what is required, and we don't seem to have that for this subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

200 Greatest Israelis

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Isn't this just one long copyvio? Cf. with The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time, which was formerly a reproduction of that list, but is now about the list itself. If I'm missing something here, I will withdraw... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources, not primary sources. The YNet list itself is not notable. The number 200 is arbitrary. Categorizing some people a "Greatest" based on a vote with some undefined criteria is not objective, not useful and non encyclopedic. See also WP:NOTESAL. Marokwitz (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete WP should not repost primary sources. However the list can be linked 200 times and used as a source: "So and so is such and such a number on the 200 Greatest Israelis list published by Ynet in 2005."BigJim707 (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. First, there is no copyvio issue (which is the nom's sole concern).  It is the same as reflecting any poll--we reflect a great number of them -- that is the normal course.  As in the List of Academy Award-winning films, and 1974 NME Critics End of Year Poll, and Gallup's List of Most Widely Admired People of the 20th Century, and List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2011 (U.S.).  Without getting too technical, the key is: a) attribution; and b) format.  As long as we have attribution (which we have here) and the format is not a mirror of the original format (which is covered by copyright -- we are also OK here), there is no copyright violation.  Otherwise, we would be deleting all lists of Academy Award and Emmy winners and the like.  Second, it is a national poll.  Third, it is by a high-level RS.  Fourth -- this is just the thing that readers have interest in.  13,000 readers in the last 30 days.  That's something we should be sensitive to, under wp:commonsense.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep As long as reliable sources are provided, it could not be any clearer that this is a list created by the source, not Wikipedia. We publish lists on a regular basis from other sources, and Epeefleche provides but a small fraction of the lists we already include as a matter of course. Alansohn (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Epeefleche and this list is a fascinating time capsule and a reflection of the readership of that media. At number 10 is the winner of the Israeli 'idol' who bounced to relatively massive stardom. All 'top ten' lists and awards ceremonies are relative to the originator of the list. I might reconsider my vote if you add 100 Greatest Britons to this Afd. --Shuki (talk) 22:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Shuki, it's single source with very bad sample method and I doubt that the subject itself is of any notability.--Gilisa
 * That is your OR. --Shuki (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)(talk) 07:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is essentially a copyright violation of an arbitrary, non-notable news website poll from 2005. -- NINTENDUDE 64 01:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, as explained above, it is certainly not a copyvio. Any more than the indicated lists, or any other of the same nature that do not copy the format of any polls -- whether they be national in scope, or of people voting for Emmy Award winners or the like.  That is why we are able to reflect such polls, and why multiple newspapers reflect such polls.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I said that it essentially is a copyright violation, not that it actually is. It is still an arbitrary, non-notable, proprietary news website poll from 2005. -- NINTENDUDE 64 19:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Copyright is a rather specialized topic, I recognize.  But in truth, as law professor Bearian indicates below, this is neither "essentially" a copyright violation, nor "proprietary".  If it were, as mentioned, all Gallup Polls and Academy Award votes and the like would be as well.  The U.S. Supreme Court clarified this in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 111 S.Ct. 1282 (1991), in which it wrote (emphasis added):  "A factual compilation is eligible for copyright if it features an original selection or arrangement of facts, but the copyright is limited to the particular selection or arrangement. In no event may copyright extend to the facts themselves."  A screenshot of the list would, for example, be covered by copyright, but the mere listing of the fact of the 200 people chosen in the poll is not.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Strongest possible Delete - It's ridiculous to lean on one source only, whose poll represent nothing and we don't even know much about the full methodology in which it was done. This article create new very bad standard according which any poll that was done by and published in relatively large news website is legitimate nominee for new article (and we all know Wikipedia opinion on single source articles). I don't even elaborate on the issue of RS, because Ynet is certainly considered by many Israelis as website which represent certain POV-and it does matters when dealing with a poll. I don't think that this is a good article, it certainly stand bad standards. I think speedy deletion should apply here.--Gilisa (talk) 07:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I just read again the source-it's a complete mess. First, the poll represent the opinion of Ynet readers only, they didn't randomly sample the Israeli population-rather it was self report by readers of Ynet who completed the poll from their own initiation so it wasn't even a random sample of Ynet readers, not to mention that we know nothing even about their average age (in serious polls you try to sample only people above 18, it's certainly not the case here). Second, they don't tell much of how they chose the nominees to be included in the list of the "Greatest 200". They do tell that they get a lot of recommendations on who should be included in the list of the nominees but they don't tell why many of those they mentioned as recommended by the readers were not included eventually as nominees though they should. In fact, we don't even know if the same reader could vote more than once-which is very probable with online polls in such sites. Sum it all: It's nonsense, delete it without hesitation. --Gilisa (talk) 07:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - There are a lot of lists like these on WP, representing a number of countries, therefore, there is no reason not to keep Israel's. They are also based on voluntary polling across the media. In general, I don't really think WP is the place for these types of lists, although they don't disturb me. To me, it's enough that each person on the list is mentioned as such (thanks, Epeefleche). --Sreifa (talk) 08:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sreifa, please address me to such list which is based on single source and refer to single poll. The notability of such poll is not much higher, if at all, than this of any daily headline report-so, should Wikipedia house article for every daily report in every different media channel? The answer is obvious. Single source articles are in any case not welcomed in Wikipedia and take in mind that Wikipedia is also not a news site and this poll have no other value than being some kind of news. For the sake of good standards I think it would be better if you consider this issue again.--Gilisa (talk) 10:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * De Grootste Nederlander, The Greatest American, or any other item in Template:Countries' greatest people TV series and media polls has such lists. --Sreifa (talk) 06:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Invalid examples, the first was regular public poll the others are about TV series -and it's standard for every TV series to have article in Wikipedia.--Gilisa (talk) 07:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think Sreifa supplies fine examples of our long-standing approach to similar lists on wp. What the lists share in common, is that they are all the results of media polls (either TV or print media).  And all have the same precise focus -- each is a poll of the "best" from country x.  Most were apparently spurred by the British poll, in 2002.  See:  Argentina: El Gen Argentino • Belgium: Belg der Belgen / De Grootste Belg / Le plus grand Belge • Bulgaria: Velikite Balgari • Canada: The Greatest Canadian • Chile: Greatest Chilean • Croatia:  Greatest Croatian • Czech Republic: Největší Čech • Finland: Suuret suomalaiset • France: Le Plus Grand Français • Germany: Unsere Besten • Greece: Great Greeks • Ireland: Ireland's Greatest • Italy: Il più grande italiano di tutti i tempi • Japan:  The Top 100 Historical Persons in Japan • Netherlands: De Grootste Nederlander • New Zealand: New Zealand's Top 100 History Makers • Portugal: Os Grandes Portugueses • Romania: Mari Români • Russia: Imya Rossiya • South Africa: Great South Africans • Spain: El Español de la Historia • Ukraine: The Greatest Ukrainians • United Kingdom: 100 Greatest Britons • USA: The Greatest American.  And "otherstuffexists" allows us to look at such similar lists, as long as -- as is the case here -- that is not the only argument for keeping the list.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment- while it is clearly not a copyvio, I am not yet convinced it's notable. For example, has the list itself been reported in the news? (For the record, I only found one source from Google News.) I'm open to both sides. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Beerian, it wasn't reported on news at all - I doubt that many Israelis even remember such poll. In fact once in a year or two every almost every media in Israel perform such poll or closely related one -with different journals or sites having mostly different findings. It's not serious, really.--Gilisa (talk) 07:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The one mention Google news archive search shows is just mentioning someone made that list. Unlike the other list mentioned, this isn't something giving a lot of coverage it seems.  Then again, perhaps in Israel it was.  If someone can search all Israel reliable sources and see if they list it, then we can determine if its notable or not.  We can't be certain until someone who speaks that language, does a search.  I believe all those people are also listed at List of Israelis so if we redirected the page, they'd still be able to find everyone, plus more.  "Ynet is the most popular Israeli news and general content website."  I wonder how many people actually voted.  I look at the link through Google translator but don't see it.  I assume it was a significant number of people, not just a hundred or so guys around at the time they were doing this.   D r e a m Focus  18:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, there were 20,000 votes but most probably that much less voters because in online polls like that it's not uncommon that one can vote more than once. As for Rabin, if I remember right he was very surprisingly elected as the man of the previous civilian century by Time magazine just because a small group of his fans manipulated the voting system, then his election was called off. Also, these "20,000" readers represent only those in Israel who read Ynet (and though it's the largest in terms of number of readers, there are many other Israeli news sites with large population of readers) and from their own will chose to participate in the poll..No, it's not notable. Also, they didn't include in the nominee list people who were strongly offered by their readers-so even the criteria to choosing the nominees for inclusion in this list is not clear.--Gilisa (talk) 07:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - not notable primary cited news website poll list. Off2riorob (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep—notable list of notable people. I will quote myself from before: The article should have information about planning, execution and reception [of the poll], but the fact that such information is not yet present does not warrant any action other than eventually inserting it. The deletion rationale that the list is a copyvio is simply not true. —Ynhockey (Talk) 18:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - the list itself is not notable as there are no third party secondary sources covering the list. If there were source actually talking about the list then an article could exist on that topic, but that isnt what this is.  nableezy  - 13:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - after reading the comments above, I am forced to conclude that this list is not notable, since there are not sufficient reliable sources to document that it has become a notable list. A show such as The Greatest American is sourceable at least. This does not seem to be of that ilk. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I have no opinion about the article yet, but some of the comments above are saying we shouldn't cover this because the quality of the poll is low. This is a non-reason. We do not decide to write articles on things based on our decision about the intrinsic quality--it would certainly make some interesting but interminable debates on musicians and some similar topics.   DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Let's see what the poll was about from the sources quoted in the article: "Newspaper tabloid poll", "a poll by the Israeli news website Ynet" and "a poll by the Israeli news website Ynet" (using English sources only). Absolutely ludicrous methodology that's unrepresentative of the population (for one thing, this was an online poll). Moreover, every tabloid has an online poll everyday. Nothing here shows how this poll is unique - refer to WP:MILL. Ratibgreat (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It is a poll by media outlet of the country's largest circulation newspaper, and which since 2008 has been Israel's most popular internet portal, as measured by Google Trends. We have many such "Greatest" polls by parallel media organizations on wp, as reflected above.  As DGG points out, the "quality" of the 20,000 vote poll is a non-reason.  As to interest of the readership in this, the fact that over 600 readers viewed the article in one day -- before this afd -- suggest a high level of interest.  And, of course, we have all manner of "Lists of notable persons from country x", where there is nothing more to the "choosing" than the fact that one editor picked the person for the list.  Here, also, every entry is a notable person, by wp standards.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "An online poll taken by 100,000 users show that 100% of the world use Internet." This joke shows the inherent systemic bias of an online poll. Once again, there are thousands of polls taken by the largest media outlets in any country everyday, making this a run-of-the-mill (WP:MILL). Ratibgreat (talk) 06:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the first two sentences as they seem to focus on a joke not rooted in what we are dealing with, this is a poll of 20,000 people, by the largest media outlet in a country, that attracted 13,000 views on wp last month, and that is part of a series of national polls of parallel nature that similarly attract interest and were largely (the press reports) spawned by the parallel British poll. It is similar to the "Notable People From Country X" lists that we have for all countries -- except that it is rooted in something other than "Editor X added the name", and has nearly half a dozen footnotes that refer to the list.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Note - moved to - Israeli news website Ynet's 2005 poll results of 200 Greatest Israelis- note - I still support deletion but the article name was not correct at all. A t least if you want to duplicate a worthless list here call it the crap name so that people know what crap it is. - this comment is onlty to the supporters of this list - User:Epeefleche User:Alansohn -User:Shuki -User:Sreifa and User:Ynhockey - are you guys all  Israeli?  Off2riorob (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Now moved to the more appropriate Ynet 2005 poll of 200 greatest Israelis. These types of polls run by the most popular news organizations are very notable, as attested by the multitude of coverage it received in all media outlets. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 01:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * comment -Thats "online poll" - This article is supported by six Israelis now including you, but there are currently nine delete comments all of which are not Israelis. - the lists a pile of trivial un-encyclopedic worthless crap only supported by users with a clear COI. Off2riorob (talk) 01:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete tabloid promotions are not independently notable. We have articles for all these people anyway. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have tagged a number of previously articles previously mentioned, mainly for notability and needing third party references. Evidence that this class of thing can be notable is evidenced by good articles at Ireland's Greatest. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - There are several references in the article that verify the term's use, but I haven't found any articles from reliable sources that are go into depth about this topic. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - this AfD is ridiculous, same as the renaming of the article. Considering this move, we should also rename The Greatest American into Discovery Channel's competition The Greatest American. The information about the Ynet poll's sample is available online. I agree that the introduction of this article is really short, but let's improve the article. I don't agree that it's copyvio as noted above. --Faigl.ladislav (talk) 12:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because The Greatest American exists doesn't mean so should this - refer to WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you think The Greatest American is independently non-notable, put up an AfD there as well. Just because that article is about Americans doesn't make it too sacred to put it up for deletion. Ratibgreat (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Faigl makes valid points. As was indicated earlier, Other stuff exists allows us to look at such similar lists, as long as -- as is the case here -- that is not the only argument for keeping the list.  It says:  "you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist... While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." (emph added).  And we also have the various Gallup polls (e.g., Gallup's most admired man and woman poll, Gallup's List of Most Widely Admired People of the 20th Century), Time Magazine polls (2004 Time 100, and succeeding years), etc. (e.g., 100 Great Black Britons and Top 100 Public Intellectuals Poll), that have wp articles which are referred to above.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - There are exactly zero secondary sources that discuss this poll. Not one. Each of the third-party "sources" used in the article only say something like such and such was voted one of the 200 Greatest Israelis of all time in a newspaper poll. None of them, not a single one of them, discusses the supposed topic of this article. We supposedly have requirements for what can be articles on Wikipedia. One of those requirements is that the subject is covered in third-party secondary sources. The claims that this poll has a multitude of coverage it received in all media outlets or that it is a notable list of notable people does not stand up to any scrutiny at all. Notability is defined by the coverage in the third-party sources. There is no such coverage so it is not notable. This poll received the exact opposite of a multitude of coverage. Nationalism should not be a reason to just make up some nonsense and act like it is true here. If this poll received actual coverage in secondary sources then there should be an article. If it did not then there should not be one. It is fairly clear, despite the efforts of linking to respectable looking sources that do not actually cover the subject of the article, that no such sources exist. Since that is the case this article should be deleted.  nableezy  - 12:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If this was a Facebook post, I would've clicked like. Ratibgreat (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter  (talk)  15:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable list. Secondary sources are lacking to show that this list itself is notable enough to justify an article. Edison (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Absolutely subjective list. Not covered in secondary sources, fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 *  Keep. There is no copy-violation issue. You can't copyright a list. --Kylfingers (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can copyright a list. See WP:FU and also Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_51. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 17:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As WP:FU states, there may be copyright with such a list when it is selected in a creative manner -- an example would be a Siskel and Ebert Top 100 list. A poll is a different animal, reflecting factual data.  That is why Academy Award polls and Gallup polls and the like are routinely reflected by media other than the collector of the data.  As the guideline continues:  "Complete lists based on factual data, such as List of highest-grossing films, are appropriate to include."--Epeefleche (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Quoting Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_51 for your convenience, the courts have not nailed down in great detail the amount of creativity required for lists; it is her opinion that polls are likely to be protectable as well because the parameters of the survey are chosen by those who conduct the polls and the selection of respondents indicates "at least some creativity." She says, "Because I believe survey results can be protected under copyright law, any use of them should be guided by fair use principles" and reminds that "Merely republishing them without any commentary or transformation is not fair use." She adds that "Another issue that you may want to consider on a case-by-case basis is that even if the lists/surveys are not copyrightable because they completely lack creativity, they may be protected by license agreements that bind the user/reader from republishing the list/survey results without permission. Absent a license agreement, you may still run afoul of state unfair competition and/or misappropriation laws if you take a substantial portion of the list or survey results. Ratibgreat (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Law Professor Bearian (and I also have three decades of having practiced law in the US, and have dealt with this issue in regard to the use of financial data). And with the guideline itself.  It states:  "Complete lists based on factual data, such as List of highest-grossing films, are appropriate to include."  The limitation, for such lists, is that one cannot present an image of the list, or a xerox, or a screenshot.  This is reflected as well in the US Supreme Court opinion quoted above.
 * In addition, practice makes it quite clear that such polls are not copyrighted -- her points would mean that media (and wp) would not reflect Academy Award award results, and Gallup polls, and the like. The media does (as do we).  Even laymen without legal background can see readily that this is not treated as copyrighted material -- just look at all the Gallup polls and Academy Award results reflected in the media at large.  As to licensing -- that is completely accurate if, and only if, there is a license agreement.  As in the case of Standard and Poor's selling financial data to Morgan Stanley under a license agreement.  That has nothing at all to do with the instant circumstances.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: No coverage of the online poll. SL93 (talk) 00:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Violation of copyright: WP:FU. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 17:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. WP:FU and Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_51, as quoted by ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak show that lists, including those based on polls, can be copyrighted. Hence, this list, among notability problems, is a copyright violation as well. Ratibgreat (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete We can, and should, host polling lists in their entirety, but only if the list is notable (such as the multiple AFI greatest films lists, which have received significant coverage in the mainstream media as well as within film journals). Unlike the AFI lists, this list hasn't hasn't received much attention by reliable sources and nobody judges an individual's greatness by his presence on this list. It isn't significant and it doesn't pass our notability guidelines. No comment on the copyright issues, as I've seen arguments each way in the past and I'm not in the position to judge them.  Them From  Space  22:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep – No, it's clearly not a copyvio. And it's an important list of notable people. I think it would better for Wikipedia if we keep this article. -- Bryce   Wilson  &#124;  talk   04:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. As is the historical result for all of these subjective lists.  This is a copyright violation and must be deleted.  The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * All polls and votes, from all the Gallup Polls to the Academy Awards, are of course subjective. We and the media at large (because they are not copyvios, as reflected in the above SC case) reflect them.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sourced lists of celebrities are fine. Biophys (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as now named Ynet 2005 online poll of 200 greatest Israelis since Ynet and Ynetnews are the established online extensions of the reliable long-standing news source Yedioth Ahronoth in Israel. IZAK (talk) 05:56, 4 October 2011 (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.