Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De Grootste Belg


 * 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) Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)    16:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

De Grootste Belg

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable. cf. Articles for deletion/200 Greatest Israelis. List articles that simply reproduce lists published elsewhere are non-notable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, rather ridiculous nomination. TV show (with radio and newspaper support) that got loads of attention before, during and after. I was rewriting the article after removing the Prod, but got an edit conflict while saving due to this AfD... I have added sources from Belgium, but also articles from Trouw and NOS, two reliable Dutch sources, showing that the poll received considerable interest in other countries as well. Please withdraw and do some research the next time. Fram (talk) 08:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Response It's hardly ridiculous--all the sources you added are in Dutch and I don't know that language. I could find Google hits, but how would I know that these are reliable sources or what they are saying? Since this is an English-language encyclopedia, English-language sources are preferred for precisely this reason. Can you find any secondary commentary in English-language sources that demonstrate notability? If not, then this should be deleted. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement that sources be in English. You may find a translation service of use.- gadfium 19:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Gadfium is certainly correct, as is Fram. There is no requirement that sources be in English.  Or that nom be able to read the language.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Response No one said that English-language sources were required--sources are required and English-language ones are preferred; this is not controversial. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I know you are not seeking to mislead fellow editors. But please be careful -- when you leave out the highly relevant end of a sentence, as you did here, your communications may do just that.  As the policy states (in full):  "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available."  (emphasis added)."  The points made by Fram and Gadfium are on point, and the policy you point to has no relevance to the substance of their comments.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - The TV show on its own would make it notable, in my opinion. Deb (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. As explained at length at the indicated AfD, there is obviously no copyvio at all.  If there were, we would have to delete (and no press could reflect) the results of Academy Award polls, and Gallup Polls, and the like.  The relevant Supreme Court case (Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, 111 S. Ct. 1282 (1991)) is set forth at the above-indicated AfD.  See also (with the same conclusion) Articles for deletion/100 greatest Romanians and Articles for deletion/100 Greatest Britons; and note that copyvio wasn't even claimed in the failed Afd at Articles for deletion/The Greatest American.
 * I note, as well, that this appears to be part of a series of PRODs and AfDs today by the same nom, of many of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Nominator is mistaken in this generic non-notability claim about articles whose topic is a list published elsewhere. If simply reproducing that list, it would indeed quite likely be a copyvio, and thereby a reason for speedy deletion. But that has no bearing on the issue of notability. There, the criterion is whether the topic of the article has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. --Lambiam 05:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: the claim by the nominator that "Can you find any secondary commentary in English-language sources that demonstrate notability? If not, then this should be deleted." has been shown to be incorrectly above by others (and seems to be denied by the nom a few posts later somehow), but anyway, there was an Associated Press report about the election as well, as can be seen here. This source also discusses the poll, and the differences between the Flemish and Walloon one. Fram (talk) 07:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Response The AP link apparently says that this happened, not that this was important--I don't know that this qualifies as significant third-party coverage. If it is saying that 6 million voted in the poll, then that is certainly newsworthy, but if it says that this was a poll of some segment of a population of 6 million, then there is nothing inherently newsworthy about that: there are public polls all the time of larger and smaller populations. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There are not constantly polls involving a radio station, a newspaper, and 12 TV shows. AP doesn't report on any poll that is organised either. Anyway, these wete just some extra's for those people requiring English sources: the significant coverage in Dutch language sources has long ago closed this, and I have no idea why you don't just withdraw this AfD. Fram (talk) 10:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Response Because I have no idea if this has significant coverage in third-party sources. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Read the article. Full articles in reliable sources from a different (neighbouring) country. What more do you want? Fram (talk) 06:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep assuming a native-language speaker can confirm that each of those refs do actually have more than a paragaph about the topic. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Nom seems to have taken on board zero from the above AfD discussion, and the at discussions at the various other AfDs he started just now -- since he makes the same wholly unwarranted assertions about "possible" copyios at Articles for deletion/Great Greeks, Articles for deletion/Belg der Belgen, and Articles for deletion/El Español de la Historia.  Given the overwhelming rejection of his assertion at those AfDs by the community at the other various AfDs, the fact that the closer at the AfD he points to gave it zero credence in his close, and the fact that the other older AfDs identified above that have close rejected any assertion of copyvio resoundingly, it becomes increasingly difficult to do anything other than conclude that nom has rebutted the assumption of good faith he is otherwise entitled to, and is engaging in intentionally non-consensus, POINTy, misleading behavior at the series of AfDs he has just initiated.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Response Hardly. I'm no expert on copyright and I simply didn't follow a lot of the discussion at the above-linked AfD. At some point, it became too technical and arcane for me. All I know is that there several users were still of the opinion that it was a copyvio and at The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time, there have been several copyvio concerns (as I recall, that page was even deleted once and sure enough, looking at it now there is a copyvio concern.) I say all this precisely because I don't know if it's a copyvio and I provide a link to that lengthy discussion for other users to decide. I don't see how that abrogates my right to good faith. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm no doctor. But if there was a discussion as to whether (for argument's sake) you had AIDS, and somebody said you did, but the conclusion was to ignore the spurious accusation, and a medical professor opined that you did not have AIDS, and tertiary evidence made it clear that you must not have AIDS -- I wouldn't go around trumpeting on a dozen pages "Koav MAY HAVE AIDS!".  And then hide behind the skirts of "well ... I'm no expert ... readers can read what I linked to, which .. oh yes ... of course says in the close to avoid the AIDS accusation".  If you are no expert, and want to ignore the fact that Academy Awards are polls and that All Star votes are polls and all those are faithfully produced ad nauseum, and if you can't read or understand the caselaw, and want to ignore the consensus of reaction to you on this point across the dozen AfDs you started, then at least recognize that the closer of the AfD you pointed to as your "support" ignored it.  You've lost the assumption of good faith because you have ignored all of the above.  And, to be frank, your above selective quote -- where you left out the last part of a sentence that turned it on its head -- did little to convince me you are entitled to the assumption.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. First, I note that at Articles for deletion/100 Welsh Heroes, the closer in the AfD nom relies on above objected to nom's use of the close of that AfD as precedent. He wrote: "No blanket declaration about the inherent notability of such lists was made, or even implied, in my closing statement .... And I don't know how much clearer I could have been that copyright issues were not considered as a factor in that close."


 * Second, it is clear as discussed above that there is not any copyvio. In addition, nom's last sentence is simply inapplicable. As to notability, I agree with the majority of the editors who have commented on this page that sufficient notability has been evidenced.  I also note (as a further argument, as wp:otherstuffexists allows) that we have thousands of lists of people from country x (or city y, or college z), which weren't even the results of polls (as this one was) -- just collections that random editors chose ... this certainly has greater indicia of notability than such lists, which we certainly find to be sufficiently notable.


 * Finally, I note that the strong majority of comments on the 2 dozen-odd AfDs that nom made of the same ilk are expressing keen disagreement with nom's parallel nominations. The AfDs, which are running concurrently with this one, can be found at most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:00, 10 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.