Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LIFE's 100 Most Important Events of the Second Millennium


 * 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. --Core des at 02:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

LIFE's 100 Most Important Events of the Second Millennium
Essentially a copy of Life's top 10 events of the millenium, with a link to the other 90. This isn't really the place to mirror some other organization's lists. --Wafulz 03:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Also nominating LIFE's 100 Most Important People of the Second Millennium for similar reasons. --Wafulz 03:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete both per nom. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. --Aaron 04:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is probably a copyright violation anyways; I'm pretty sure that subjective lists ("Top N widgets...") are copyrightable. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 04:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete both, WP:NOT. --Ter e nce Ong (T 06:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete the EVENTS Keep or Catagorize the PEOPLE  Why?? Because the people list, as it stands now is just a numerical list of the 100 top people Life, a major magazine, thinks are important from 1001-2000.  It links to the appropriate wiki pages for the meat of info.  I don't see a problem with having a page for people who know of the article, but who may not know who exactly is on it, and they want to learn more.  EnsRedShirt 06:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As I stated above, I'm pretty sure that the list is a copyrighted work of Life Magazine. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 07:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete iff remains in substantially current form These articles about someone's lists of the "Top N of Foo" are delicate issues.  Generally such articles are acceptable when the creator of the list is notable, and the article is discusses how the list was formed, controversies with the selection process, and the significance and impact of the list.  It is not acceptable to just regurtitate the list in the article, partially because of copyright concerns, partly because bald lists are unencyclopedic.-- danntm T C 02:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Er, your bolded iff statement doesn't make too much sense. --Wafulz 02:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Clarification I'm quite simply stating that why such articles are not inherently doomed, in this form, it should be deleted.-- danntm T C 16:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Oh wow nevermind, I completely misread your comment in the first place >.< --Wafulz 02:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, do not created yet another non-defining category for people. Pavel Vozenilek 16:00, 21 October 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.