Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of billionaires (2007) 101-946


 * 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 merge to List of billionaires (2007). WjBscribe 19:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

List of billionaires (2007) 101-946

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Kept as part of the bhulk nom at Articles for deletion/List of billionaires (2005) as being WP:USEFUL and "not a copyvio". Which is as it might be, but the list of the not-top-100 billionaires according to a single source is not, as far as I can tell, encyclopaedic; more sort of WP:NOT really. Also I take issue with it being useful in any measurable way. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep tricky one, and I'm prepared to be argued down, but I don't find the deletion argument persuasive enough, while the keep arguments in the last afd do ring true for me. After all, this is no paper encyclopedia... --Dweller 12:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep wikipedia is not paper. Just like List of former members of the United States House of Representatives may be a bit large it still significant since being a former member of congress makes one notable.  Likewise being a billionaire makes someone notable.  Note that most of the people on the list already have article.  I imagine that those that even those that don't have an article own a company (or several companies) that do.  And by the way there is also a duplicate article List of billionaires (2007) 100-946 which contains a little more information that this article.  It should be merged then redirected.   Jon513 12:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Copyvio or no, it's still just a copy-paste of the Forbes information.  Wikipedia is a tertiary source - not a secondary mirror of someone else's information.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not quite a copy-paste. It's a bunch of clickable links. But I do tend to agree with you. What would be needed would be for this list to be encyclopedic would be for it to include more information; as that information should really be in the top article (1-100!) it begs the question why this article isn't merged with that one. Hence, I alter my stance to Merge to List of billionaires 1-100. --Dweller 15:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as a useful form of navigation and indexing. I would like to see more useful information in the table, such as their industry. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 15:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The reason it's not merged with List of billionaires (2007) is it'll be too long, i think it's best kept separate. And Arkyan's rationale is used for the nomination for deletion of List of billionaires, which the result was to keep. --wil osb 02:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge with List of billionaires (2007). I don't understand why a list of 900 is O.K., but a list of 1000 is too long. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. A single-source list based on a copyrighted source -- it's not an objectively ordered list using objective criteria, it's a list Forbes created themselves -- which by its length essentially constitutes a directory. Which makes it fail the multiple references and WP is not a directory criteria, and is essentially a copyright violation, to boot. Kill it. --Calton | Talk 02:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This argument has been proposed in the nomination for deletion of List of billionaires and the result of the vote was to keep.--wil osb 17:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge The list is useful, encyclopedic, and not a copyvio. (and if there ever were an objective criteria, $$ is objective)But thi sis a duplicate article. I cannot image how the two articles came here; I hope nobody did the work invain, and that it was an accident of the article history.  DGG 03:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge although the title actually should start at 101, not 100 .... that's more work for somebody to fix, unless the other is merged into this one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dhartung (talk • contribs) 05:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.  -- Pax:Vobiscum 20:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable at all. You could just include a link to the source on the original list of billionaires. ~  G1ggy!  Reply 23:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge into List of billionaires (2007). Previous years lists did not have a separate article for the first (top) 100, and then another for "the rest of them".  Yes the list would be long, approaching 900 for 2007, while 2006 only showed 330 or so, but "breaking" the list at 100 seems arbirtary and again inconsistent with the other versions.  Recombine the lists, and if necessary, find some way to "thin it down" or something.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 18:13, 9 May 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.