Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the 100 wealthiest people


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

List of the 100 wealthiest people

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I can't see how any of the facts giving this list are substantiated. I think it detracts from wikipedia to represent we have knowledge of the 100 wealthiest people. The various sources include such publications as Forbes which, itself, freely claims their list is merely a subjective opinion. Wikipedia shouldn't represent opinion as fact. This is a highly disputable area, open to all manner of manipulation and false representation.  Chzz  ►  08:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The fact that a list is constantly changing and/or may not be 100% accurate doesn't present a reason to delete IMO. Would you delete List of countries by population, which suffers from the same issues?  Lists of the wealthy are regularly compounded by Forbes, Fortune, etc and there's no reason I see that WP can't do the same.  It's not opinion if it's well sourced and any discrepancies can be noted with footnotes or otherwise. Oren0 (talk) 09:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The list should have references--and will certainly change--but the topic surely merits notability. --Artene50 (talk) 11:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Most encyclopedic content is the opinion and interpretation of one or more researchers--encyclopedias do not present raw data. There is no original research here; this list is backed up by some of the most notable sources. Owen&times; &#9742;  11:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- Although it is true that these values do frequently change, there are thousands of articles that could have the same thing said about them. A well sourced and informative article such as this shouldn't be deleted.  Mastrchf  (t/c) 13:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll just add a keep here. This is a notable list. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely keep. Even if it's just "according to Forbes" it's notable. If it's really a problem can't a table be made like that on list of countries by GDP? Make columns for each conflicting source and number the people there. Merpin (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The information is referenced, and it is encyclopedic content. Note: I am the article's creator. Gary King  ( talk ) 18:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep although some of it is not referenced all that well, it is verifiable. Tavix (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  23:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Gigantic violation of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:NOR, and unfixable.  Best one can do is a Forbes list of 100 wealthiest people, but that's a different article than this one, as well as a possible copyright violation. THF (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's only synthesis if we're combining info in a novel way that reliable sources haven't done. Numerous sources have compiled lists such as this so what's original about the research? Oren0 (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This sort of information has been around for a long time and has been published in magazines and newspapers. We aren't reaching any new conclusion, so I don't believe that SYNTH applies. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 00:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The primary source (Forbes) is reliable and likely the best source available for this information. The article is heavily linked to other articles, both persons and businesses, and may be the only reason that Wikipedia users discover and explore those other pages.  There does not appear to an alternative wealth based index on Lists of people, so the page serves a useful purpose.  However, I do believe it is misnamed and should be restored back to the original List of billionaires (2008).  The current name implies that it kept up-to-date, which if done would lead to the WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:NOR objections cited above.   -- Tcncv (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongly Keep I don't understand what's wrong with this? If there is any other reliable source than Forbes than of course we can consult both of them and then prepare it, but as of now I don't see anything wrong with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.224.10 (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's well-cited, useful for our users, verifable, not defamatory, and of notable persons. I'm sorry, but I don't understand this nomination. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2009 (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.