Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people reported in the press to be 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. consensus is to delete ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 11:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

List of people reported in the press to be billionaires
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The contents of this article do not demonstrate the article's scope or purpose. Per Wikipedia's rules, everything must be reported in the press (of some sort), so the title does not make sense to me. By the intro sentence it seems to be a list of people whose billionaire status is only speculative and unconfirmed, which also warrants the article's deletion, and its brevity (and unclear inclusion criteria) does not provide any usefulness for the article. There are many other billionaire-related lists with similar material, but I do not see the possibility for a merge. Reywas92 Talk 01:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The wording of the title apparently indicates they are people reported to be billionaires, rather than (or perhaps in addition to) in one of the standard lists. I think thats a category that is reasonable and sufficiently defined, though necessarily restricted to those whom we have identified. In this case it can even includes those about which we presently have no articles, because such a report from a RS would normally indicate notability . I wouldn't want to keep this if it were a specification generally thought to be derogative.  DGG ( talk ) 07:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. If they're reported to be billionaires, then, as far as we're concerned, they are, and there's seemingly a billion lists for that already. If they're only suspected of being such, it's not something that the media covers except as an occasional aside, as it's not an attention grabber. Heck, even the lower echelons of known billionaires don't receive much notice as a group, just the top 100 or 400 or whatever. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. This was moved to the present title by a now-retired editor late last year, from List of non-Forbes billionaires, which was twice discussed at AFD. I've added links for those discussions above. The distinction appears to have been because all (?) of the other billionaire lists, including those by country, appear to rely on Forbes exclusively as an authoritative source (why, I do not yet understand). Often if an article title seems oddly specific, it has some kind of complicated history like that. postdlf (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would support a move back to that name, then (Forbes is part of the press and they report their list!), but I still see little purpose for this non-comprehensive article. It seems the other list ought to be reorganized as well so not to rely solely on Forbes. Reywas92 Talk 17:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Currently List of billionaires redirects to Forbes list of billionaires (2011). List of members of the Forbes 400 (2010) exists; List of American billionaires does not. Then we have Forbes list of Indian billionaires, but List of Indonesians by net worth, though even though "Forbes" is not in the Indonesian list title, it still only relies on Forbes. So while my first inclination is to agree with you, I suggest caution until we figure out why all of this is set up as it is, and hear from someone who may support it. postdlf (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - a classic content fork. Bearian (talk) 23:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - A discriminate list that currently has each entry verified with one or more inline citations. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, each entry is notable...most billionaires already have articles on Wikipedia. But is the topic generally notable?  Verifying that "Person X is reportedly a billionaire" makes Person X notable; it doesn't make the list notable  p  b  p  23:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: You're either a billionaire or you ain't. If you're a billionaire, you belong on the billionaires list.  If you're not, you being reported as such is erroneous.  Remove both people who are billionaires and people who aren't, and you've got an empty list  p  b  p  23:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - as PBP says, either you are or you aren't; "reported in the press to be..." is classic WP:WEASEL. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete no evidence this list will ever meet WP:NOR and it's purely speculative in nature which Wikipedia isn't for. Secret account 18:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, we already have Forbes List of billionaires and its derivations to properly cover the topic. — Hahc 21  00:28, 24 June 2012 (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.