Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of billionaires (2006)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted 07:07, 6 April 2008.

List of billionaires (2006)
Nominating this list in tandem with List of billionaires (2008). Both lists are based off of List of billionaires (2007), a recent WP:FL. Gary King (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

 Comments Support Thanks. PPR links to a dab page. I'd write TWA in full. Ray Ban should be hyphenated. The only thing I would suggest is making it clear that people made their money through investments, because when I first went through it I thought it was a company! There was one (Schaeffler Group) that linked to the founder, which I don't mind too much, but presumably if it made them billions then the actual group would warrant an article of its own. Anyway, great effort. PeterSymonds | talk  22:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * all done Gary King (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments -- ṃ• α• Ł• ṭ• ʰ• Ə• Щ•  @ 23:21, 25 March, 2008
 * As for the 2008 list, there is no need for a General reference in this list either
 * More secondary and tertiary sources should be included. The Forbes one is good for the list itself, but try to find others for the source of wealth especially, as the Forbes page doesn't give that and is currently OR.
 * Is it OR when a reputable magazine like Forbes did the research? Also, the article is written to reflect the list from Forbes; it's not a statement of the actual richest persons in the world, because I'm sure the 'real' list would be different. It all depends on the metrics you use to measure this - in the case of these articles, they are explicitly based on the lists that Forbes releases. Gary King (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But the Forbes article doesn't give the source of wealth (unless I missed it). Including this without sources is OR. -- ṃ• α• Ł• ṭ• ʰ• Ə• Щ<big style="color:#090">•  @ 23:34, 25 March, 2008
 * Forbes article does give sources of wealth, when you click the names.Gary King (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Aah. I didn't know that. -- <small style="background:#fff;border:#191970 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">ṃ<big style="color:#090">• α<big style="color:#090">• Ł<big style="color:#090">• ṭ<big style="color:#090">• ʰ<big style="color:#090">• Ə<big style="color:#090">• Щ<big style="color:#090">•  @ 23:44, 25 March, 2008


 * Oppose per WP:NOT. We don't act as a statistical repository for old data. See List of countries by Human Development Index and Global Peace Index for examples. Apart from a few sporting lists, Wikipedia presents current data. If a featured list contains data that is updated periodically, we expect editors to keep it refreshed in a timely manner or else it is defeatured. Similar lists have been deleted. See also 2008 below. Colin°Talk 13:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, what about articles such as Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008 which is just a list of statistics (opinion polls, no less, meaning they may not even have any bearing on the final outcome), and I would say is far more unwieldy than this article. Gary King (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an awful dump of random statistics. It isn't a FLC is it? Not what WP is for at all. Of course, the actual presidential election polling results could be a FL and would be for an instance in time. Wikipedia's purpose isn't to provide raw data for trend analysis of billionaires over time. The reader is generally interested in the current list, whether updated daily, quarterly or yearly is somewhat irrelevant. The reason these 2005/2006/2007/2008 lists exist is because Forbes update their list annually. They've been doing this for over 20 years -- surely you don't intent to bore us with 20 years of billionaires? As I said, there is a precedent for such out-of-date lists to be AfDed (can't find an example just now) and I'd certainly suggest you focus on creating a great current list and move onto another topic. Colin°Talk 17:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose For same reasons already mentioned in the 2008 nomination. Drewcifer (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.