Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Mexican billionaires

List of Mexican billionaires
This is a list of Mexican billionaires current as of the last iteration of Forbes' list. Personalities have no redlinks (although businesses may be an issue). Still, I think it meets all the criteria, so let's see how this one goes. -- Rune Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; | Esperanza  14:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Why isn't this a copyvio? jguk 17:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * For the same reason List_of_billionaires_%282005%29 and related lists aren't. -- Rune Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; | Esperanza  19:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

And what's that? Forbes put a lot of work into coming up with how to measure wealth and then measuring it - it's not a case of them quoting freely available statistics. I'd be interested to know why it's not a copyvio, jguk 21:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The relevant discussion is on the talk page of the article I linked to above (sorry for not mentioning that, see here). Since this has been discussed in WP:CP before and it was agreed that it should be kept, I didn't think there would be a problem with this article. -- Rune Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; | Esperanza  23:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, however, that discussion is far from encouraging. I'm very nervous about saying something isn't a copyvio because one editor, who isn't as far as I'm aware a US copyright law professional, voted "keep". The case Guanaco quoted (Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service) does not seem to apply directly. There is great creativity in coming up with measures of wealth - what value to place on land, unquoted shares, etc. - how to determine what assets are held or within someone's control. Forbes also has to consider whose wealth it chooses to assess to see if they would qualify for their list. In Feist it appears that the Supreme Court of the United States decided there was no creativity at all in Rural's directory. There is considerable creativity in Forbes's list. Of course, I'm no US copyright expert either, but my reading is that we have a potential problem. If you know a US copyright lawyer who could usefully comment on this, it would be great, until then Strong Oppose jguk 10:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I see your point, of course. Let me see what I can do. -- Rune Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; | Esperanza  15:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I've posted a request for copyright examination and also made an announcement in the Village Pump to request more input. Let's wait and see if anything comes up to shed more light on this. -- Rune Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; | Esperanza  14:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I suggest delisting the article as a FLC until the issue is resolved. Do you have any objections to that? jguk 18:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)