Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Asians by net worth


 * 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. The keep arguments mostly some form of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. While delete arguments make the case that NLIST has not been met. The stronger set of arguments are for deleting the page. -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 08:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

List of Asians by net worth

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

We are not a Forbes mirror; nor a stats database. Except for Wiki mirrors, or plain mirrors of the Forbes list, or similar lists (with however vastly differing figures and names, which suggests it isn't actually plausible to have an accurate article on this), there is nothing about this topic I can find to provide more than statistical trivia. Thus fails WP:NOT and WP:NLIST. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:53, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Asia. Shellwood (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Why delete? There are dozens of similiar lists on Wikipedia. --Afus199620 (talk) 11:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please list them so I can nominate them too. WP:OTHERSHITEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep more content which violates core policies like WP:NOT. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * These lists are already here for years, and the decision to keep was made a long time ago. They won't be deleted. --Afus199620 (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:OLDARTICLE is not a valid reason to keep stuff. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There should first be a decision on all lists first before there is one on one.--Afus199620 (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Net worth is notoriously difficult to measure, so an accurate list is impossible. A complete list of possible delete candidates is available at Category:Lists of people by wealth. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 05:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete. Afus199620 didn't list the lists claimed to exist. Moreover, "They won't be deleted" is not an argument, and their existence for years isn't an argument for keeping them, either. Athel cb (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * First a policy decision should be made about all lists in Category:Lists of people by wealth, before any single list is to be deleted.--Afus199620 (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. The list links to blue-linked entries, which makes it very solid to begin with.  Sure, the page should be templated to include refs, under pain of deletion of any unreferenced entries, but WP:DINC. XavierItzm (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to cleanup for something that fails WP:NOT. The list links to blue-linked entries, which makes it very solid to begin with that does not make any list "very solid". I could make a list about List of countries by day of the week their last government was elected (or any other arbitrary subject) - all with blue links to each country, to each day of the week, and to the last elections held there - that would not make it any more suitable for inclusion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Since it's based on a single primary source, it runs the risk of a copyvio, and must be started from scratch. Bearian (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Forbes is not a primary source and there is no copyright violation.--Afus199620 (talk) 06:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTMIRROR is still policy. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Valid navigational and information list article. So is List of countries by number of billionaires, List of Africans by net worth, List of Europeans by net worth, List of Latin Americans by net worth, or the dozens of articles for listing the wealthiest person in every nation.  If the information about their wealth can be listed in the articles for them, no reason not to list it here as well.   D r e a m Focus  23:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You know WP:OTHERSHITEXISTS is a shit argument, right? All these pages should probably also be deleted per WP:NOT. I don't se what "navigation" or "information" this provides to readers. Stats trivia is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete this type of article is not what we do here. If there are in fact other articles that are similar, then they should be deleted as well. Topics included in the article that have their own page, are just that: notable enough for their own page. Sourcing them to a standalone page, and displaying their own highly speculative and always changing net worth is not encyclopedic in nature and not supported by Wikipedia policy. Megtetg34 (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - I'm marginally fine with this. This is not a copyvio since Forbes collects the info from other sources - this is not their original content, as opposed to 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die. It is WP:SYNTH but people who are interested in lists and info will appreciate. Lock down the inclusion criteria on the talk page (what is meant by Asian, for example) and leave a hidden comment for editors and it will be OK. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  03:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Strongly Keep - This type of regional listings have nothing to condradict wikipedia standards. There have been enough articles with some entries by country who have successfully passed the articles for deletion process. Abbasulu (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This type of regional listings have nothing to condradict wikipedia standards You don't provide any argument why these articles meet Wikipedia standards, nor do you even appear to be aware that, in fact, there are plenty of reasons why this does not meet said standards. How unconvincing. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete. The key point is that this list is openly and unashamedly taken from Forbes alone. It is a mirror of Forbes, nothing more. The whole point of an encyclopaedia is to summarise human knowledge derived from multiple sources; its this consensus-finding that makes an encyclopaedia valuable. We're contributing nothing by mirroring a single website. The list could be seen as a directory of articles about ludicrously rich notable individuals, but as such it's wrongly structured. Since Wikipedian notability is not temporary, annual rankings are irrelevant, and the list should be timeless. As it stands, we're going to have to add a new top 30 in 2023, and again in 2024, and many individuals will be the same in multiple successive years, which is unnecessary list-bloat, and within a decade the list is destined to become too big to use. So if the list must be kept, it should be a simple one-entry-per-person list covering all eternity. Elemimele (talk) 10:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Multible sources will be extremely messy and not comparable. The list can be easily updated annually like all these lists. There should first be a policy decision about all the lists that are structured in exactly the same way, before any single list is to be deleted.--Afus199620 (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * here should first be a policy decision about all the lists that are structured in exactly the same way, before any single list is to be deleted: I disagree. The proper venue to decide the validity of articles for inclusion in Wikipedia always has been AfD. In cases like this, the usual way (a method I have already implemented a few times) is that a few articles which appear to fail inclusion standards are nominated at AfD; and usually the reminder are then dealt with at a later date. Arguing that there should be a policy decision about specifically "lists of people by wealth" seems like process for the sake of process; and is also unlikely to reach any useful outcome as the community usually dislikes making policy or other guidelines for one-off, specific cases (that is, more often than not, unnecessary WP:CREEP). Better implement the policies and guidelines which we already have. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete As per reasons stated by Elemimele, and lacks multiple reliable sources establishing that WP:NLIST is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not find much encyclopaedic value in such lists, but, although I too strongly believe in WP:OSE, I'd Strongly Suggest a General Discussion about having such lists in Wikipedia. It'd be unjust to limit the discussion to simply a random one of those. Do we take it here? -The Gnome (talk) 10:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You should open an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists if you are to discuss this further. –Laundry<b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 23:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In view of the many similar, extant lists, I'd suggest to wait on this specific case and not decide either way. I'm taking this up in stand-alone lists. -The Gnome (talk) 08:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.