Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Os Piores 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    No Consensus. Ideally this article would be sourced, but that is not a pressing reason to delete in the absence of consensus. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Os Piores 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☯ 18:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 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 05:50, 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)
 * Response "If the list is cited elsewhere, and this one clearly is it's notable under our ordinary guidelines."... How is it clearly notable and cited elsewhere, when this article is unreferenced? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:10, 8 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 2 dozen AfDs on the same day by the same nom, of most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Non notable. This 'worst Portuguese' vote was mostly a joke - they nominated an horse!? - by a political satire TV show, riding the wave of competitor channel's huge success, a show about 'great Portuguese' (Os Grandes Portugueses) - Nabla (talk) 14:40, 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--precisely what nom has done here as well.  The closer 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 note (as wp:otherstuffexists permits) that we have thousands of lists of people from country x (or city y, or college z), which aren'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. Every one of the parallel AfDs that has closed, in which precisely the same arguments were made by nom, has been closed as a "keep".  The AfDs, which are running concurrently with this one, can be found at most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - Epeefleche makes a convincing case, the only think making this "weak" is that it's unreferenced. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:44, 13 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.