Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Name of Russia (Russia TV)


 * 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) Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)    16:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Name of Russia (Russia TV)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable, possibly copyvio. cf. Articles for deletion/200 Greatest Israelis. List articles that simply reproduce lists published elsewhere are non-notable. Some dissent is mentioned, but it's not clear that these are notable or reliable sources. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep meets WP:GNG and WP:LSC. Media coverage in several Russian newspapers, journals, webpages, etc. I don't see any copyright issues. You can add it on WP:CP if you think it has copyvio. Also we have 100 Greatest Britons.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ Hey it's me 18:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. As explained at length at the indicated AfD, there is obviously no copyvio at all.  If there were, we would have to delete (and no press could reflect) the results of Academy Award polls, and Gallup Polls, and the like.  The relevant Supreme Court case (Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, 111 S. Ct. 1282 (1991)) is set forth at the above-indicated AfD.  See also (with the same conclusion) Articles for deletion/100 greatest Romanians and Articles for deletion/100 Greatest Britons; and note that copyvio wasn't even claimed in the failed Afd at Articles for deletion/The Greatest American.
 * I note, as well, that this appears to be part of a series of PRODs and 2 dozen AfDs today by the same nom, of many most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Nominator is mistaken in this generic non-notability claim about articles whose topic is a list published elsewhere. If simply reproducing that list, it would indeed quite likely be a copyvio, and thereby a reason for speedy deletion. But that has no bearing on the issue of notability. There, the criterion is whether the topic of the article has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. --Lambiam 05:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per above, of course. Grey Hood   Talk  18:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep  just, as for the others.Not copyvio, as has been clearly explained above. Sufficient sources for notability Thee is no policy against these lists, and the assertion of the nom does not make policy.  DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Seems like a few WP:1E news stories + a whole lot of non-independent references to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Even in Russia? You must be kidding!-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ Hey it's me 09:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * A whole bunch of top Russian politicians, scientists etc. took part in the show, it was discussed all over the Russian media, it's results pruduced scandal and are well-rememered. Meh, this deletion nomination is a joke. Grey Hood   Talk  21:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the refs in the article. I don't speak Russian and have no way of evaluating for relevance or independence of hits in a google search. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. First, I note that at Articles for deletion/100 Welsh Heroes, the closer of the AfD to which the nom points objected to nom's use of his close as precedent.  He wrote: "No blanket declaration about the inherent notability of such lists was made, or even implied, in my closing statement .... And I don't know how much clearer I could have been that copyright issues were not considered as a factor in that close."


 * Second, it is clear as discussed above that there is not any copyvio. In addition, nom's last sentence is simply inapplicable.  As to notability, I agree with the majority of the editors who have commented on this page that sufficient notability has been evidenced.  I also note (as wp:otherstuffexists permits) that we have thousands of lists of people from country x (or city y, or college z), which weren't even the results of polls -- just collections that random editors chose -- and this certainly has greater indicia of notability than such lists.


 * Finally, I note that at the 2-dozen-odd AfDs that nom made of the same ilk most commentators are expressing keen disagreement with nom's parallel nominations. The AfDs, which are running concurrently with this one, can be found at most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:22, 10 October 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.