Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of richest women in USA


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

List of richest women in USA

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unsourced - tracking it back to Ranker.com, a website where anyone can make a list, brings us to a 13 year old who hasn't revealed where they got the information. As it stands this is either original research or a copyright violation, which we cannot directly check. Such lists as these are matters of research and informed opinion, and they belong to the person or organisation who did the work, such as Forbes. If someone is prepared to research who originally created this list, rename the article, source it, clean it up, and reduce it so it is a sample rather than the entire list then it would meet our guidelines. Otherwise it should be removed.  SilkTork  *YES! 12:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Simple lists can't be copyrighted, so that argument is not valid. Questioning the reliability of the source is perfectly fine, though doing so at AfD is not the best place. It should likely have been tagged as having questionable sources and some time allowed for doing what you're suggesting (verifying sources and cleaning it up). ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 19:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I know what you are saying. However, while lists of simple facts cannot be copyrighted, lists that are the result of research or expert opinion, such as Forbes_list_of_billionaires and Rolling Stones 500 Greatest Albums, are copyright, and this has been decided in courts of law, and is what Wikipedia follows. A person's wealth is not a fact, it is a matter of informed calculation based on detailed professional research, and opinions would differ. Such research and educated calculation is creative, and is a person's intellectual property. This is a list which has either been taken from someone else's research without any acknowledgement - which is copyright theft, and Wikipedia can be taken to court for that; or it is made up by an uninformed 13 year old based on their assumption, in which case it is Original Research. We keep neither on Wikipedia.  SilkTork  *YES! 17:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Simple lists can not be copyrighted regardless of how they were created. Now, if they were part of an article or research paper or something similar, then the article or paper could be (and would be) copyrighted. Even then, however, the the simple list itself can not be copyrighted. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 06:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete for now. It doesn't have any good references, provide net worth figures, or even say when it was compiled. As of October 2010, Forbes says Christy Walton tops the list, not Alice Walton. It could be an article, just not this one. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2011 (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.