Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greatest Croatian


 * 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)    16:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Greatest Croatian

 * – ( 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☯ 18:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 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 05:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Nominator seems to be on a pointy spree which reeks of systemic bias. For the record the list came as a result of a poll conducted by Nacional, one of the two most widely read news weeklies in Croatia and something of a local equivalent of Time magazine. Surely this alone should confer some degree of notability.  Timbouctou ( talk ) 00:40, 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) 03:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The deletion rationale is rather unfortunately worded. Saying that "list articles that simply reproduce lists published elsewhere are non-notable" seems to imply that the only way for a list to be notable is to have content that was not published anywhere, and surely this is not what was meant. E.g. I've worked on the List of members of the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts, and there are two interesting things about it in this context: 1) in its entirety, you can't find it anywhere else but here, however that has nothing to do with it being notable or not, 2) even if the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts published this exact list and nobody else did, I contend that it would still have been notable. So, the only avenue of attack against this list is its possibly dubious copyright status. GregorB (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, as with the other similar nominations. It's not copyvio, as has been shown pretty thoroughly. As for the nom's argument, we have no such policy. If the list is cited elsewhere, and this one clearly is it's notable under our ordinary guidelines.   DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep These lists are very useful for finding very notable biographies.♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. First, I note that at Articles for deletion/100 Welsh Heroes, the AfD to which the nom points, the closer objected to nom's use of his 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 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) 07:09, 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.