Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of the 100 wealthiest people/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 21:33, 15 April 2008.

List of the 100 wealthiest people
This list is based off of List of billionaires (2007), a list I submitted that became WP:FL a few weeks ago. Gary King (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Support I delinked the word "billionaire" in the enboldened part of the lead, but apart from that, it's very similar to List of billionaires (2007). Congrats (once again!) on your hard work. PeterSymonds | talk  17:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

SupportIt's been a long road, but the article's looking very nice! Great work. Drewcifer (talk) 07:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Abstain Since it seems I'm in the minority (see below), I'll just withdraw my vote. For my own piece of mind, however, I'd still like to bring up the topic at WP:RS or something like that, but for now I'll let the cards fall as they may for this FLC. I'll try and keep everyone posted. Drewcifer (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The topic has been brought up here, so feel free to take a look and chime in. Drewcifer (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Not much else to moan about though, besides the slightly excessive external links and the dependency on a single primary source. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments from
 * Surprised billionaire isn't linked anywhere.
 * was linked to from emboldened text, but is now linked to in 'Top billionaires' section Gary King (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably need specific context that it relates to the year 2008 in the lead, not just assume we get from the fact Forbes released the list in 2008.
 * done Gary King (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Millhouse Capital redirects back to Abramovich (there may be other examples) - as per the Google acquisitions, I'm not too happy with this. Either unlink or write the article.
 * done Gary King (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I believe the links in the See also section are redundant, since those links are already in the "billionaire" template. I realize that by removing this section, the ToC will disappear, but it's not needed anyway. -- Crzycheetah 22:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * done Gary King (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Looks good.-- Crzycheetah 00:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:NOT. We don't act as a statistical repository for old data. Yes I know this is the 2008 list and I didn't see the 2007 slip through as an FL. Rename this to List of billionaires and ensure you keep it up-to-date. 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. Colin°Talk 13:01, 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)
 * Let's discuss this issue at 2006 rather than repeat stuff here. Colin°Talk 17:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * List of billionaires (2008) has been moved to List of billionaires. Gary King (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue with this just being a snapshot in time has been resolved: this list will be maintained as the current top billionaires. However, its scope and sourcing is now confused. Previously it was all according to Forbes on one day (yearly updated). If this is still the case (ie. the amount and rank come from Forbes) then Forbes should be a general reference, not a footnote (i.e, it has a bullet point and is listed at the end of the References section.) At the moment, it looks like many of the entries are unsourced since they have no entry in the ref column. If the entries now come from a mix of sources then the lead is totally misleading and you are conducting original research. It would be original research to collect people and valuations from multiple sources and then rank them in a top 100 order. In addition to being OR this would be statistically nonsense since your sources are all for different dates so the precise ranking is not possible. Finally, some of your "sources" are just news articles repeating Forbes. The Forbes list is a totally reliable source, in so far as you trust anyone to compile such a list. Why are any other sources required? At the moment I'm strongly opposed to this being featured. Sorry. Colin°Talk 10:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So... should I follow this line of reasoning or 's? This Wikipedia stuff is confusing. Gary King (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well this is certainly an interesting situation. However, I don't think that my suggestions and Colin's are necessarily mutually exclusive.  Colin's suggestion of making the Forbes source a general reference rather than an in-line is a very good suggestion.  From what I can tell, the majority of the other sources merely echo the Forbes source, so I don't think there's a problem of ranking based on differing scales/moments in time.  I suppose sourcing an article like that is a bit redundant, but I stand by the fact that a single source was a problem.  The only thing left to do is to make sure that the Lead is worded very carefully, so that the scope/sourcing of the list is no longer confusing. Drewcifer (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hopefully it's better now? Gary King (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. I've just looked at nearly all your extra "references" and they all cite the Forbes list. They add nothing. Some of them aren't even citing the 2008 Forbes list, so they are one or two years out of date. I really don't see what Drewcifer's problem is with citing just Forbes. If the list is based on Forbes 11 February 2008 list then there is no getting away from it. Colin°Talk 20:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Basically because an article that is based on a single source is a) redundant, b) about as useful as a single external link, and c) goes against WP:RS, (specifically the fact that the guideline often uses the word "sources" (plural).) Here's what I think we should do: this seems to have become more of a meta-Wiki issue, so I recommend this FLC be closed (since it appears we're deadlocked anywys), and we can bring up the issue at WP:RS or WP:V or something like that.  That way, we can get a broader set of opinions, and maybe the guideline can be reworded a bit to avoid confusion like this in the future. Drewcifer (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be a real shame to fail this list, because it is nearly there. I don't have any problem with only having a single source, especially when that source is the only one with any authority in the matter. The newspaper articles that repeat (possibly with errors) the Forbes list do not add anything (though they make us all aware, if we weren't already, of the importance of the Forbes list). The list serves a navigational purpose to the billionaire articles. All WP material duplicates what is out there; that doesn't stop us having our own version. I'm sure there are other FLs with one source (or lots of sources pointing to the same web site). Colin°Talk 07:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There's not shame in failing an FLC, especially when the issues raised are beyond that of the single article. The list has been "nearly there" for sometime now (the FLC is almost 4 weeks old now), but for one reason or another seems to not quite make it according to someone for some reason.  I just think it would be more productive to bring this issue up elsewhere, with the intention of renominating this list once the issue is settled. Drewcifer (talk) 09:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I feel about this page now, since its move. I preferred it when it was "List of billionaires (2008)", as it met criteria 1a3 and 1e. As soon as February 2009 rolls around, somebody had better update this list immediately, or it will become unfeatured. Sure, we expect editors to update it, but it doesn't mean they will. I didn't see the harm in having it set to one year; season pages for TV shows do this, as do lists of hurricanes (albeit for a longer period of perhaps a decade). It's also still semi-protected, which since that's an automatic fail for a GA, it should be an automatic fail for featured status. When does the protect expire? -- ṃ• α• Ł• ṭ• ʰ• Ə• Щ•   @  23:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether we should have (2006), (2007), (2008) is more the sort of discussion AfD handles. There are precedents for lists like this to be "current" and for the editors to be expected to keep it so in a timely manner. I don't think that should be a problem. Forbes have been doing this for over 20 years and it isn't WP's job to act as their archive. The semi-protection issue can be resolved by asking an admin to remove it -- and they will monitor if the trouble returns. Colin°Talk 07:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree with Colin that the list should be based completely off of the Forbes list and shouldn't mix things up by using other citations. Some of them are from last year (one is from 2006) so they are hardly up to date. As well, the lead should be expanded a bit. -- Scorpion0422 15:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I removed the references. What else can I add to the lead? Gary King (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I hate to sound like a pain, but the lead needs at least one citation, perhaps for "Stock prices are defined as shares of ownership in a corporation, and exchange rates are defined as how much one currency is worth in terms of another."
 * As for how to expand the lead, you could add who Warren Buffett replaced as the wealthiest man (Bill Gates?) and how long that person reigned for. You could also include things like which country has the most billionaires, who the richest woman is, and the fact that it is based entirely on the Forbes list should be mentioned in the lead. -- Scorpion0422 16:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll deal with this if and when this list and others like it even survive. I'm mentally claiming this nomination is already closed, at least until the concerns that I can't fix with this list alone are resolved. Gary King (talk) 07:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - If there was at least SOMETHING added from other sources - short biographies, say - then this would be an encyclopaedic list. As it stands, however, this is not only a straight reproduction of the ranking in Forbes list, this pretty much is Forbes' list, even including the up and down arrow symbols to compare with the previous year. Something that uses one source and copies all information from it except changing the biographies (which are at least in the online version) to a list of companies mentioned in the biographies is not Wikipedia's best content. What it is is a copy violation. While it's certainly salvageable if you do some research, cut the Forbes-specific things like the moves in ranking (instead describing how their fortune has fared and changed over the last year), and make it Wikipedia's own, as it stands, it is a copyright violation. A very attractive derivative work that has had a lot of work put into it, but derivative works that are this similar to the original are still copyvios. Since information cannot be copyrighted, we can use Forbes' list as the basis for our own, but we cannot simply reproduce it while adding no new information. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. This seems to be nothing more than a repackaging of the Forbes list (which is the article's only source)... the two are virtually identical... the only difference is that the Wikipedia article has a (unsourced) column for "sources of wealth", listing the various companies that the people own. Instead of being a good candidate for Featured List, it is closer to being a good candidate for deletion. Blueboar (talk) 22:21, 14 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.