Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filmfare's List of Top Ten Actresses


 * 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. Punkmorten 23:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Filmfare's List of Top Ten Actresses
The article purports to be dedicated to a list of top actresses published by an Indian film magazine since 2003. However, the article doesn't give any of the lists, but consists of a lead para arguing that Rani Mukerji is the top actress in Bollywood, followed by slighting mentions of other actresses. As it stands, the article is biased, and an attack on the other actresses and should be deleted for that reason. (The creator of the article has been linking this article to other actress pages, as a subtle attack on their standing vis-a-vis Rani.) However, even if the article were what the title would lead one to expect, a list of the ten winners for each year, it would still be trivial and non-notable. Newspapers and magazines publish lists of favorites all the time, none of which rate WP articles. Nobel Prize winners yes, Filmfare magazine, no. Zora 06:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Firstly, Filmfare's List of Top Ten Actresses is not notable enough (unlike Filmfare Awards). Secondly, If the article includes the complete list, it will be a copyvio. From the Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service case: "In regard to collections of facts, O'Connor states that copyright can only apply to the creative aspects of collection: the creative choice of what data to include or exclude, the order and style in which the information is presented, etc., but not on the information itself. If Feist were to take the directory and rearrange them it would destroy the copyright owned in the data.". The names or the list of the actresses are not copyright by Filmfare, but the creative choices Filmfare made in producing a ranking are copyrightable by them. The ranking is a creative invention of theirs—they did not simply publish the names of schools as in a directory. If the entire list is published, it won't be re-arranged and the title already indicates that the list belongs to Filmfare. It is not legal to take their list—published in their commercial magazine and website—and simply publish it on Wikipedia under GFDL. utcursch | talk 08:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that this article does not actually do that. Read it.  You won't find a list of ten people in it.   The problem with the article is not that it violates copyright, but that it appears to be an original analysis of why various actresses have held the positions on the list that they have, over the years.  This article would be acceptable if such an analysis could be sourced, but from reading it, and seeing the personal bias of the author that is obvious from the content of the article, I strongly suspect that this analysis is a new analysis, being constructed firsthand by a Wikipedia editor directly in Wikipedia in contravention of our No original research policy.  The way to rescue this article would be to rewrite it from any sources that exist, if they exist. (I haven't looked.) Uncle G 12:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know. I mean "In case the article includes the complete list, it will be a copyvio." -- I specified that because in the deletion nomination, Zora said that article doesn't give any of the lists. 14:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Filmfare Magazine is a gossip magazine and really not notable enough. Also, it only includes a facet of Indian Cinema, namely the one based in Mumbai. What about the other industries? Besides the copyvio issue, also, we had to accept every regional list from every country and every gossip magazine and Wikipedia isn't about gossip, I think. -- Plum couch Talk2Me 10:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Why are you attacking the NO.1 If next year, someone else is No.1, we will talk about her too. What's wrong with the list when I didn't or you didn't make it but a reputed Filmfare Magazine did so. It's not just one mag but all five big mags have named Rani the top actress of 2004 and 2005. It's not her fault. It's a great accomplishment. As for the rest, other actresses feel proud to be on this list and thus, this article should not be deleted. User:shez_15 06:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions.  -- --  Lost (talk) 06:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Do NOT DeleteIt has clearly been a worth while aricle on wikipedia and it is not creating any contreversy or havoc, so therefore it should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by King Dracula (talk • contribs)
 * Delete POV essay + nonnotable list Bwithh 13:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per, among other guidelines, WP:NOR. -- Kicking222 14:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per UncleG's points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eusebeus (talk • contribs)
 * Delete non-notable fan/listcruft. Elomis 21:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete Filmfare is widely considered the "standard" for film-news/interviews/views in India. Of course, I am not talking about regional cinema. I have edited the article to reflect Hindi cinema. Another point I want to make is, remove all the 'original research' but keep the list. Unless it is copy-vio... though I don't see why it is. Finally Zora: If Bankable star and Sexiest Man Alive are notable, despite the fact that they are "regional" to USA, and do not consider Indian/Chinese/Bhojpuri superstars, why not Femina's list? Anagha 15:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There are over a million articles in WP and some of them are junk that should not be imitated. Bankable star and Sexiest man alive should be eliminated too, as non-notable ephemera. As for Filmfare being "the standard" -- that's your personal opinion. The only metrics that can be defended are objective -- circulation figures, in the case of print media, and Alexa rankings, in the case of websites. How does Filmfare stand by those measures, and how does it stand vis-a-vis its rivals?
 * Any real information in the article, as opposed to Rani-glorification, could easily be folded into the article on Filmfare magazine. Title should probably be changed, to Filmfare (magazine) to make it clear that it's a magazine. Right now the article is stubby. Just add a section about the magazine's lists of the bests, and link to the magazine's website if that gives the lists. Hmmmm ... do we have articles on the top Indian film magazines and websites? With circulation and Alexa figures? That might actually be useful. Then all the various polls and such would have proper homes. Zora 07:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's frustrating to state the obvious Zora. But have it your way. Filmfare with a circulation of 1.47 lakh and a readership of 44.9 lakh, enjoys the second largest readership among all English magazines in India and is the largest film magazine. Here's the link: And before you question Economic Times's credentials  The Economic Times, started in 1961, is India's largest and among the world's top three English business dailies. The Economic Times is published simultaneously from seven cities across India, has a circulation of 400,000 copies, and is read by over 1 million people every day. here's the link:  Anagha 11:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Great, let's put that in the Filmfare article. I still think any material re magazine polls, contests, lists, etc. belongs in the magazine article, not in a separate article. Zora 12:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay so are you gonna put up deletion notices on bankable star, sexiest man alive et al as well or should we not touch that till people you don't like go there? And what about List of Miss Universe winners, List of Miss World hosts and invited artists and List of Academy Award winning films and suchlike? Isn't there a policy decision on these? Why do you decide what's "notable" and what's not? Anagha 15:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Zora is not deciding what's notable and what's not. The community is deciding (hence this discussion). Comparing List of Academy Award winning films to this article is obviously not right. Also see WP:INN. utcursch | talk 09:11, 3 November 2006 (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.