Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Zealand's Top 100 History Makers


 * 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)    16:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

New Zealand's Top 100 History Makers

 * – ( 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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, as all television programs screening on national tv appear to be considered notable. I've added some reviews to indicate notability. The issue of whether such a list in an article is copyright needs to be discussed at a central location rather than in many different AfDs. My opinion is that the list is not copyrightable, and the value in the TV program is the detail about the life of each person, not their name and list placement. While we have biographical articles about most of the people on the list, these do not as far as I know draw on the television program or book for their detail. If despite this the list is unacceptable, it can be removed and replaced with a paragraph just mentioning the highest ranked people on the list, as some of the reviews do.- gadfium 19:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. - gadfium  19:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep We do have a list of 100 Greatest Britons to be fair which did garner a fair amount of external discussion. The NZ one would obviously not get the same amount of coverage, but did generate a book and coverage on news sites such as Scoop as well as comments on "nzhistory.net". Is the depth of coverage enough to make it notable? I would lean towards a yes, and therefore keep. The article certainly needs work though. Heywoodg   talk  21:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment:Scoop is a press-release sight and not suitable for proving notability. nzhistory.net is an official MCH website staffed by professional historians (+others), so editorial content is gold (but MCH allows comments from the public on some websites too, so it has the be editorial content). Stuartyeates (talk) 05:33, 6 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) 21:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. This appears to be based on the outcome of the recent Articles_for_deletion/200_Greatest_Israelis, which means that the notability of these articles comes down to the standard notability issues. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the nom's incorrect assertion that there may be a copyvio issue here is not a basis for deletion here (as reflected above). It would be good for him to strike it.  And that his assertion in his last sentence in his nomination does not apply here (that is worth striking as well).  The only thing even left to discuss, out of his three-pronged nomination above, is whether the list is notable enough or as with Lists of New Zealanders and the like otherwise appropriate to keep.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 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 05:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG. I see no significant coverage as required. I see two articles which each have a couple of paragraphs (but which share an author) and I see a single paragraph in an apparently independent forum. This is not significant coverage, this is routine coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets notability criteria for TV programmes. Deb (talk) 11:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, as for the other similar nominations. It's not copyvio, as has been shown pretty thoroughly. As for the nom's argument, we have no such policy. If the list is cited elsewhere, it's notable under our ordinary guidelines.  DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep These lists are very useful for finding very notable biographies.♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:48, 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) 07:20, 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.