Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Os Grandes Portugueses


 * 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)    16:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Os Grandes Portugueses

 * – ( 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☯ 19:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Obviously keep, by the motives mentioned above regarding simillar lists --Explendido Rocha (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - as a nationally-networked television programme, it meets the notability criteria. Deb (talk) 11:56, 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) 00:47, 5 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 05:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Response And are there significant third-party sources to establish notability? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Justin -- unless you have support for the copyvio claim, in light of the above and the comments at your various AfDs I would suggest you cross-out that incorrect assertion, as I assume you do not want to mislead laymen editors who may not know better. Similarly, unless you have a guidance that supports your claim that is the second half of your rationale, I would suggest you delete that as well, for the same reasons -- it reads as though you are stating policy, while in fact there is no guideline cited that supports it.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And ... why the second sentence applies?--Epeefleche (talk) 11:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Response There were several persons who agreed and several who disagreed at the prior AfD--that's why I linked it. I'm no expert on copyright violations, but it seems like it could be to me, so I'm just throwing it out there as a concern. Regarding the second half of my rationale, that's exactly what the notability guideline is and exactly the rationale for deleting the other list. I don't see how that's misleading. Again, anyone can (and should!) read that AfD if he wants to be informed about what I'm trying to say here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It should be clear from the only case cited, as well as the fact that the Academy Award polls and Gallup Polls are frequently cited, that there is no copyvio, as well as from the Supreme Court case cited and quoted. Even to a layman.  Same with the prior AfDs pointed to.  The sysop's close showed what a layman can do if he truly can't understand that similar polls exist as in the Academy Awards, and the results are reflected broadly by media, and if he can't read the Supreme Court case, or apprehend its effect -- he didn't use copyvio as an asserted reason for deletion ... you did the opposite, and raised it as a possible problem, which can confuse the unknowing, while it is nothing of the sort and was not used as such in any of the indicated closes.  As to your second sentence, can you quote the guideline that says exactly what you said -- and explain why you use that language to describe lists that do not in fact "simply reproduce lists published elsewhere", but that do precisely the opposite .... do more than simply reproduce the lists, but actually contain further text?  Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 11:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, as with 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, and this one clearly is it's notable under our ordinary guidelines.   DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Had a impact lasting much longer (i.e. still lasts) than most TV shows. Maybe there is no scholar references, but if you search for new in the last month, you'll find references to it only months or days old. note: I am Portuguese - Nabla (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep These lists are very useful for finding very notable biographies.♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:49, 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 consensus of the editors, a majority of whom have !voted keep.  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) 07:39, 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.