Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cities with the most billionaires


 * 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. Carlossuarez46 17:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

List of cities with the most billionaires
– (View AfD) (View log) Vandalized listcruft; if this is actually sourced, it is probably a copyright violation. If it isn't, what are these figures based on? And who cares? Brianyoumans 05:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It's from Forbes like the article says. I remember reading it, so that's how I know, but it's also sourced at the top and bottom and includes four links. It is referenced. I don't know if it would be a copy vio. It is a list completely by Forbes, but unlike Rolling Stone's lists, this isn't subjective, so I don't know what kind of rules are placed on it. Whatever the case, "who's cares" is NOT a good reason for deletion. -Rocket000 06:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The original figures may have been sourced, but many changes have been made since; some vandalism, some based on sources not given. If it is going to be based on the 2006 Forbes article, it should be reverted to the original set of figures and left that way. Instead, people have tried to update it, badly. Brianyoumans 21:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions.   —User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 10:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I could go both ways on this. It's basically reproducing a Forbes article (or series of capsules) in table form, true, but there is minor interest on the wires in the stats as well as who's on top (a couple years ago, it was Moscow; now Istanbul is a surprise #2). Exchange rates, of course, influence the rankings enormously. It might have more significance if it had more than one year listed, but then it's even more of a list-copyvio.--Dhartung | Talk 11:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Istambul is NOT afaik in second place; that is an example of how badly vandalized this article is. Looking back in the history, I was unable to figure out what the real rankings and numbers should be. Brianyoumans 17:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Not a copyright violation--list of this sort are not copyright in the US; only the arrangement and presentation is. We can report that have have listed so and so. DGG (talk) 13:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Useless silliness: Will not age well (is probably already obsolete), is meaningless because of the exchange rate issue, isn't properly sourced (statistical things like this need more than one source to back them up, because stats are easily manipulated and falsified), and is generally non-informative - the article does not present any analysis of why a city might have more billionaires, and thus is like a List of the world's largest navels or List of buildings painted red. Essentially a nonencyclopedic list of indiscriminate information. It is also original research, specifically of the "novel synthesis" form - there doesn't seem to be a Forbes list of this sort, but rather a pair of Forbes articles about billionaires that someone has synthesized into a list of billionaires by location, without any reliable sources backing up that anlysis (the most obvious resultant problem is that many rich people do not consider themselves residents of any particular single city, and do not act in such a capacity, having multiple homes, often on multiple continents). —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 15:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * delete : Uh-oh, someone took my idea and is running with it (see this Afd ) This will be waaay too difficult to manage, given how quickly money changes hands these days. If it were spanned over say a 5 year period, not counting the current year, then I could see it working proving enough sources were referenced, and possibly an analysis were offered (as mentioned by SMcCandlish).  As for copyvio, I don't think it applies to facts, correct me if I'm wrong though (using the word facts loosly here).  ARended Winter 20:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. There's no possible way this article could be kept accurately updated. Forget the fact that people gain and lose money daily (billionaires have a lot at stake in stock market runs). Consider instead that the list is in USD, which makes the list further subject to ongoing currency valuation fluctuations. Finally, we should ask why the list is in USD (see WP:CSB) as opposed to Japanese Yen or Turkish Liras. SkerHawx 19:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it should be in Icelandic Krona or the Chinese Yuan. C'mon, let's not get politically correctly carried away here. It's in USD because that's what Forbes measured it in. Also, the U.S. dollar is what the most people can relate to (especially English speakers); it's the most meaningful to the most people. It would be ridiculous to have it in Yen. Anyway, it doesn't have to stay updated if it's for one given year (2006). Rocket000 09:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment and if it won't be updated, and will only be a list of how many billionaires lived in each city a year ago, it reinforces the irrelevance of the article. SkerHawx 11:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete (edit conflict) this is the list as of 2006, so it's nearly a year out of date. People move, and lose and gain money. It's a footnote to Billionaire (keep the refs), but not worth an article. Also, possible COPYVIO if the list appeared in Forbes and someone just typed it up here. Totnesmartin 09:51, 3 October 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.