Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Greeks


 * 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. The discussion has demonstrated that the article is clearly not a copyright violation, and that the article meets the notability guidelines. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  15:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Great Greeks

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable, possibly copyvio. cf. Articles for deletion/200 Greatest Israelis. List articles that simply reproduce lists published elsewhere are non-notable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. As was explained at length at the indicated AfD, there is obviously no copyvio.  None 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)) was already set forth at the above-indicated AfD.  See also (with the same conclusion) the failed AfDs at 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 two dozen AfDs by the same nom, of most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete – No reliable third-party sources about this poll, other than this article  on Kathimerini, which is criticizing their choosing methods. Kosm1fent Won't you talk to me? 07:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - As a nationally-networked television programme, this meets the notability criteria for wikipedia. Deb (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Which notability criteria? Kosm1fent Won't you talk to me? 15:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * These: TVSERIES Deb (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, WP:TVSERIES alone does not justify notability ("Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable [...] "– my bold). Also, the second paragraph says "In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone.", which absence is exactly the point i made in my first comment. Kosm1fent Won't you talk to me? 19:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 6 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 08:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep These lists are very useful for finding very notable biographies.♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. First, I note that at Articles for deletion/100 Welsh Heroes, the closer of the AfD to which the nom points objected to nom's use of his close 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 two editors above who have !voted keep.  I also note (as wp:otherstuffexists permits) 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 -- just collections that random editors chose -- and this certainly has greater indicia of notability than such lists.


 * Finally, I note that at the 2-dozen-odd AfDs that nom made of the same ilk most commentators 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) 07:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is clear now that this is not copyvio. The problem now is notability, and there is no evidence that this article passes WP:GNG. Kosm1fent Won't you talk to me? 09:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I understand that some of us have differing views as to whether it is notable.  How, btw, do you find it any less notable than List of Greeks?--Epeefleche (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that list obviously needs (more) references to justify notability for every individual who's in there. But yes, i think it's more notable that the TV show "Great Greeks" (which shouldn't be treated as a list). Kosm1fent Won't you talk to me? 15:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * They are both lists. Why do you think the indicated one -- chosen only by one or more editors -- more notable than a poll by an RS?--Epeefleche (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly not a copyvio, as has been shown above, and equally clearly justified by notability. The supposed policy against such lists is entirely the invention of the nom.  DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 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.