Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of billionaires (2005)


 * 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. Buck  ets  ofg 04:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

List of billionaires (2005)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This (and related List of billionaires articles) appears to me to be a copyright violation of the Forbes magazine article. This is not publicly-available data but, rather, data that Forbes reporters compile. While it would be fair use to mention in individual BIO articles that a person is on the list, or to note the first few names on the list, to simply copy the entire list and add wikification strikes me as problematic. There's a reason you don't see AP simply reprint the list when it comes out in Forbes and why there isn't a Wikipedia page of the US News & World Report list of top colleges and law schools. TedFrank 09:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Copyvio. MER-C 10:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom. Facts aren't copyrightable, but lists such as this, where it took work to compile, may be (and is). --Ali&#39;i 19:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Addendum: "This case concerns the interaction of two well-established propositions. The first is that facts are not copyrightable; the other, that compilations of facts generally are." -United States Supreme Court in the case of Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc., 499 U.S. 340 (1991). I believe Forbes has copyrighted these lists, and we are infringing upon their rights. --Ali&#39;i 14:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And the Supreme Court in Feist went on to hold that an alphabetized white pages phone book was not a copyrightable compilation of facts, because neither the selection nor the arrangement of those facts were creative, and copyright does not protect the labor involved in making anything. A factual list of billionaires, arranged by the amount they are worth, is similarly not copyrightable.  Forbes would have had to inject some creative decisionmaking into the list for it to qualify for copyright, i.e., "Forbes' list of billionaires ranked by coolness."  Contrast also with the ultimately subjective (and therefore creative) editorial judgment involved in making the U.S. News & World Report school rankings: what factors to consider, how to weigh them, what statistics to include in the tables, etc.  Postdlf 17:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all, not copyvio. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here) | HISTORY 21:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * How do you figure? THEY researched all this info and compiled it. TJ Spyke 11:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete regardless of Copyvio, Wikipedia is not meant to be merely repeating primary sources. Nuttah68 21:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It should only have one article mentionning the list of billionnaires if one is necessary.--JForget 22:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep All Reliable source of info. Effer 22:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 *  Speedy Strong Keep A list is not creative writing, but fruit of research which can be reprinted. In fact, the Associated Press does reprint it, MSN reprinted it (. Yahoo!reprinted it . A should be added instead so it may be research by the appropriate wikipedia users and not by us guessing if it is or not a copyright violation. --FateClub 23:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Apologies -- I raised the possible copyvio issue, and I was told an AfD was the way to go. Now I know better to use a tag. -- TedFrank 04:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize, however, the objection was the speedy deletion, copyvio was certainly not the issue "declined speedy... not copyvio, forbes is the source". This AfD is about the usefulness of this article, regardless of copyvio, which certainly does not apply to this article since it does not violate copyrights. --FateClub 00:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep all I don't think mentioning this list on Wikipedia is a copyvio. Nevertheless, should be added first. --Incman|वार्ता 00:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and Re-write. A list of people who are billionares is something I can expect to find in an encyclopedia.  This list however, like it or not, is a copy of the list from Forbes.  Copyvio or no, it doesn't belong in it's current state.  I say make it again from the ground up, using Forbes (and other sources) as a source for information and not as the source to be copied from verbatim --UsaSatsui 00:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable, useful for research and reprinted. Whilding87  01:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Same rationale as FateClub. --wil osb 04:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - facts are not copyrighted. --TRFA 11:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Fact is not copyright, you are correct. Researching multiple facts and then collating them into a list based on a set of user defined criteria is Original Research and Copyright {eg maps are based on fact but the work in collating them makes them subject to copyright). As such Wikipedia should not be reproducing copyrighted original research under both WP:COPYVIO and WP:ATT. Nuttah68 11:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Same opinion than FateClub above. TCY 14:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep All Relevant and not copyrighted. --Trigor 19:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Not a copyvio. - PoliticalJunkie 21:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - i think a really good summary of each year's list would be useful, but as they exist, they are litte more than copy/paste jobs.--emerson7 | Talk 03:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the current (2007) one - neither facts nor a mere aggregation of facts without any creative expression are copyrightable (but do keep in mind that IANAL), and the current one is without doubt encyclopaedic and deserving of inclusion. I have no opinion on whether the other ones should be kept or not, although I think that if they are deleted, it should be based on a lack of encyclopaedic value rather than a perceived copyright violation. -- Schneelocke 12:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the deletion forces in Wikipedia are out of control, in years to come this is a great resource
 * Keep but modify - useful information, but add labor to existing list product by organizing according to different factors: e.g. by nation or state; industry, such as brewing/sprits, import/export, real property, etc.; or, with a bit more research, some other stimulating element, such as, perhaps, whether money was inherited, or, in the case where it belongs to, e.g., members of royalty, some sort of political classification. James Seneca 18:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but with weak delete of List of billionaires (2007) 101-946  The top 100 are good, but need context, but with 101-946... it gets a little too copy-paste-ish, trivial, and long. Danski14 03:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC), changed my mind, perhaps it could be merged if it does not become too long. I thought the others were TOP 100s for some reason, not complete lists. Danski14 03:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, Very useful information, just needs to be worked on.--Joebengo 00:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * strong delete all. I understand it is very useful information, I like it a lot myself. But it does not belong to Wikipedia. Here are my points:
 * 1) Did you ever wonder how Forbes get this list? They hire experts. Experts estimate people's wealth. Then Forbes averages up the estimates in an undisclosed way. What does it tell?
 * 2) This is not facts. Facts, in general, are not available on this matter. These are merely estimates. They are probably pretty accurate on people whose wealth is mostly in US stock market or those who have to file statements and live in developed democratic countries. What if a billionaire owns an undisclosed share of a private company? How much is that private company worth? How big is the billionaire's share of the company? 2%? 79%? You have already got two unknowns. How do you come up with an estimate? What if a billionaire lives in a corrupted country? All bets are off. You hire different experts, you get different estimates.
 * 3) Wealth of many in the list is pretty volatile. It depends on current oil and stock prices, currency exchange rates. This is another reason why results of this research (and, of course, this is not a scientific one) are not reproducible.
 * 4) I do NOT understand why people assume this is not a copyright violation. Forbes pay the experts. I have no doubt Forbes have the legal rights to the results. Hire your own experts and feel free to share your results with the world for nothing.
 * 5) The fact that MSN or APN have reprinted the list is NOT an indicator that you can too. They all pay to many sources for the rights to use their information. You do not know about their contracts with Forbes, do you?
 * 6) Finally, many of us, myself included, like it. So, what is the problem to look it up at MSN? Kulikovsky 03:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
 * Everything in wikipedia is a result of the research of experts, here at wikipedia we do not create knowledge, we just put it together.
 * No argument here
 * Facts or estimates may be used here, and are very often used, if they are sourced.
 * Because lists are not copyrightable because they are not creative writing (such as songs, scripts), and on the other hand you may say "Forbes said this about this person". Just imagine copyrighting "humans have 23 pairs of cromosomes" just because it took some research to come up with that figure. Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research, everything must have been made public prior to be posted on wikipedia.
 * Good point, but it was in response to the nominator's remark.
 * In that case why bother with any article, since everything in wikipedia may be found elsewhere.
 * Cheers, --FateClub 01:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

-Samir Pradhan-
 * Strong Delete as copyright violation. Forbes spent the money and time to come up with their estimates of people's wealth. This is not something like sports statistics that anyone can easily compile by themselves. TJ Spyke 11:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether "money and time" have been spent is completely irrelevant to whether something is covered by copyright. Postdlf 03:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as the credits of the information presented is mentioned correctly there should be no problem... the acknowledgement is in itself adequate compensation since it is a free advertisement in itself that would rake in added revenues to the original publisher ! I personally feel  copyright is so much bunk ! Is anyone holding a copyright on the Bible, Koran,Gita,Gurugranth saheb etc? or the laws of physics mathematics etc? Copyright is a concept totally contrary to the "Wikipedia philosophy" which is a open free information forum..... also a country like INDIA would be down in the dumps if we did not have free access to information in science & technology espically software !!
 * delete all unencyclopedic list. SYSS Mouse 17:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * keep it you pedantic shit. go find something useful to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.225.178.90 (talk • contribs)
 * Yeah. That argument will convince people.  --UsaSatsui 00:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, yeh it needs some work and sources , but keep it :) Ammar 22:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep For the love of God stop deleting useful articles. Xanucia 23:54, 18 March 2007 (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.