Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Most Famous People


 * 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 of the debate was DELETE. Owen&times; &#9742;  16:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

List of Most Famous People

 * Delete. Original research. And using number of Google hits for a name to rank a persons level of fame is highly doubtfull, too. Shanes 00:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Take it with a pinch of salt like List of best-selling music artists and it can be an interesting, useful resource, even if not perfectly precise. Fame Mouse 00:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: This user is the article's creator. Turnstep 03:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete- This article is listcruft, and also reeks of original research. The selection criterion is highly dubious and has serious POV issues. Reyk 01:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This list is interesting. Unfortunately, it is also original research. If it were to be published by a credible third party, it would be a different story. Delete. Capitalistroadster 01:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. If for some reason it is kept, I recommend renaming it to a less misleading title such as List of most famous people according to Google. 23skidoo 01:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Wait, there's something there now. And I object to an article there as well, for the reasons I list below. Jacqui ★ 03:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination (Shanes). Falls End (T, C) 01:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or refactor and move to List of people with most Google hits or something to that effect. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 02:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOR --VileRage ( Talk | Cont ) 02:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --bbatsell | &laquo; give me a ring &raquo;  02:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - a verifiable, npov article could be written. Improve, not delete. Trollderella 02:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * There are three official content policies that must be adhered to, not just two. No original research is the third.  Keeping this article would be contrary to all three of them.  Uncle G 14:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Off-the-wall criteria (Google hits? WTF?) and a useless title means that there's nothing here worth saving. Someone could possibly make a list of famous people under a better title and with better criteria and content, but this isn't a useful start on that article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with A Man in Black. Also, List of people with most Google hits won't solve anything; that will change all the time, not to mention the fact that people could discover the list and start Googlebombing in order to try and get on it. Jacqui ★ 03:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC) Edit: can we delete List of most famous people according to Google too? It's a copy. Actually, they're not even quite the same, which only underscores my previous comments.
 * Nom'ed List of most famous people according to Google as well, thanks for pointing that out ;] --VileRage ( Talk | Cont ) 03:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a collection of Googlecruft. Turnstep 03:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Edwardian 04:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete listcruft, POV. NSLE  ( 讨论 + extra ) 05:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Even if we could find a remotely objective criteria for inclusion on the list, it would change so rapidly that we'd never be able to keep up. - AdelaMae 05:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per all the above. Eusebeus 07:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research. How famous someone is does not only depend on Google hits. Kids in Africa without any sort of computer know who David Beckham is. How famous someone is also depends on their time on TV, in papers and on exactly what they do. Making a list by Google hits links two things that are barely related. - Mgm|(talk) 10:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Trollderella is completely wrong. An article by this title can never be neutral, for the same reason that unattributed "top 10/100/1000 best" lists can never be neutral, and we don't allow them.  The article can never be verifiable, since the very source that it is using is directly affected by Wikipedia itself, and one of the fundamental principles of verifiability is that Wikipedia is not its own source.  The source is also a perpetually moving target.  The article is clearly original research, since it is propounding an novel definition of what it is to be a "most famous person". Delete. Uncle G 14:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "Trollderella is completely wrong." That needs to be put up on a plaque somewhere. Andrew Levine 02:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * But nobody pays attention to the "Don't be a dick to other users plaque" we already have. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Useless listcruft. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 14:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete: List articles have their own standards of inclusion. Lists are deletable if they are, as this one is, inherently POV, and if they are inherently incomplete.  This is both. Geogre 18:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. No good methodology for ranking the most famous people in the world exists. Google hits certainly isn't it as it skews toward the wealthy and those with access to computers. No way can this article ever be objective. Andrew Levine 02:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete disagree that this is verifiable. Paris Hilton more famous than Jesus Christ... I don't think so. --TimPope 21:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research Herostratus 08:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 08:34, 25 November 2005 (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.