483:. 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. --
527:
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 two editors above who have !voted keep. I also note (as wp:otherstuffexists permits) that we have thousands of lists of people from
533:
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
253:, there is obviously no copyvio. None 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 (
165:
528:
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.
460:
262:
270:
197:
266:
126:
440:
512:
635:
Clearly not a copyvio , as has been shown above, and equally clearly justified by notability. The supposed policy against such lists is entirely the invention of the nom.
519:
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
159:
420:
593:
Well, that list obviously needs (more) references to justify notability for every individual who's in there. But yes, i think it's more notable that the
278:
I note, as well, that this appears to be part of a series of two dozen AfDs by the same nom, of most of the national poll results reflected
575:
Thanks. I understand that some of us have differing views as to whether it is notable. How, btw, do you find it any less notable than
610:
They are both lists. Why do you think the indicated one -- chosen only by one or more editors -- more notable than a poll by an RS?--
17:
535:
279:
99:
94:
103:
522:.... And I don't know how much clearer I could have been that copyright issues were not considered as a factor in that close."
53:
180:
86:
147:
48:. The discussion has demonstrated that the article is clearly not a copyright violation, and that the article meets the
661:
36:
209:
250:
660:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
66:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
141:
213:
302:
235:
137:
646:
619:
605:
588:
568:
547:
501:
496:
487:
472:
452:
432:
405:
368:
351:
338:
321:
291:
239:
217:
68:
374:
357:
615:
584:
543:
287:
329:- As a nationally-networked television programme, this meets the notability criteria for wikipedia.
187:
173:
57:
484:
468:
448:
428:
231:
90:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
557:
227:
611:
580:
539:
283:
205:
153:
392:
599:
576:
562:
399:
345:
315:
49:
642:
364:
334:
464:
444:
424:
82:
74:
200:. List articles that simply reproduce lists published elsewhere are non-notable. —
120:
309:
395:
is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone."
201:
257:, 111 S. Ct. 1282 (1991)) was already set forth at the above-indicated AfD.
301:– No reliable third-party sources about this poll, other than this article
637:
360:
330:
495:
These lists are very useful for finding very notable biographies.♦
397:, which absence is exactly the point i made in my first comment.
269:; and note that copyvio wasn't even claimed in the failed Afd at
654:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
552:
It is clear now that this is not copyvio. The problem now is
263:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/100 greatest
Romanians
271:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/The
Greatest American
198:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/200 Greatest
Israelis
267:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/100 Greatest
Britons
379:"Generally, an individual radio or television program is
597:"Great Greeks" (which shouldn't be treated as a list).
520:
116:
112:
108:
513:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/100 Welsh Heroes
172:
391:"In either case, however, the presence or absence of
556:, and there is no evidence that this article passes
461:
list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions
186:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
664:). No further edits should be made to this page.
515:, the closer of the AfD to which the nom points
441:list of Television-related deletion discussions
313:, which is criticizing their choosing methods.
261:(with the same conclusion) the failed AfDs at
255:Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service
8:
459:Note: This debate has been included in the
439:Note: This debate has been included in the
419:Note: This debate has been included in the
421:list of Greece-related deletion discussions
458:
438:
418:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
358:Knowledge (XXG):TVSERIES#Programming
389:). Also, the second paragraph says
377:alone does not justify notability (
196:Non-notable, possibly copyvio. cf.
24:
249:. As was explained at length at
1:
647:19:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
620:16:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
606:15:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
589:15:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
569:09:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
548:07:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
69:15:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
502:22:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
488:08:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
473:15:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
453:15:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
433:15:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
406:19:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
369:17:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
352:15:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
343:Which notability criteria?
339:12:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
322:07:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
292:05:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
240:05:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
218:04:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
681:
511:. First, I note that at
657:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
50:notability guidelines
44:The result was
475:
455:
435:
251:the indicated AfD
54:non-admin closure
672:
659:
604:
567:
499:
404:
393:reliable sources
383:to be notable "
350:
320:
306:
191:
190:
176:
124:
106:
64:
34:
680:
679:
675:
674:
673:
671:
670:
669:
668:
662:deletion review
655:
598:
561:
497:
398:
344:
314:
304:
133:
97:
81:
78:
58:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
678:
676:
667:
666:
650:
649:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
577:List of Greeks
572:
571:
530:
529:
524:
523:
505:
504:
490:
477:
476:
456:
436:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
408:
324:
295:
294:
275:
274:
243:
242:
202:Justin (koavf)
194:
193:
130:
77:
72:
61:Alpha_Quadrant
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
677:
665:
663:
658:
652:
651:
648:
644:
640:
639:
634:
631:
630:
621:
617:
613:
609:
608:
607:
603:
602:
596:
592:
591:
590:
586:
582:
578:
574:
573:
570:
566:
565:
559:
555:
551:
550:
549:
545:
541:
537:
532:
531:
526:
525:
521:
518:
514:
510:
507:
506:
503:
500:
494:
491:
489:
486:
482:
479:
478:
474:
470:
466:
462:
457:
454:
450:
446:
442:
437:
434:
430:
426:
422:
417:
416:
407:
403:
402:
396:
394:
388:
384:
382:
376:
372:
371:
370:
366:
362:
359:
355:
354:
353:
349:
348:
342:
341:
340:
336:
332:
328:
325:
323:
319:
318:
312:
311:
303:
300:
297:
296:
293:
289:
285:
281:
277:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
256:
252:
248:
245:
244:
241:
237:
233:
229:
225:
222:
221:
220:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
199:
189:
185:
182:
179:
175:
171:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
139:
136:
135:Find sources:
131:
128:
122:
118:
114:
110:
105:
101:
96:
92:
88:
84:
80:
79:
76:
73:
71:
70:
67:
65:
63:
62:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
656:
653:
636:
632:
600:
594:
563:
553:
516:
508:
492:
480:
400:
390:
386:
380:
378:
346:
326:
316:
308:
298:
258:
254:
246:
232:Stuartyeates
223:
195:
183:
177:
169:
162:
156:
150:
144:
134:
83:Great Greeks
75:Great Greeks
60:
59:
45:
43:
31:
28:
498:Dr. Blofeld
375:WP:TVSERIES
310:Kathimerini
160:free images
612:Epeefleche
581:Epeefleche
554:notability
540:Epeefleche
305:(in Greek)
284:Epeefleche
601:Kosm1fent
564:Kosm1fent
465:• Gene93k
445:• Gene93k
425:• Gene93k
401:Kosm1fent
373:Firstly,
347:Kosm1fent
317:Kosm1fent
517:objected
259:See also
127:View log
595:TV show
485:Lambiam
481:Comment
387:my bold
356:These:
247:Comment
166:WP refs
154:scholar
100:protect
95:history
558:WP:GNG
381:likely
299:Delete
228:WP:GNG
226:fails
224:Delete
138:Google
104:delete
643:talk
181:JSTOR
142:books
121:views
113:watch
109:links
16:<
633:Keep
616:talk
585:talk
544:talk
536:here
509:Keep
493:Keep
469:talk
449:talk
429:talk
365:talk
335:talk
327:Keep
288:talk
280:here
265:and
236:talk
174:FENS
148:news
117:logs
91:talk
87:edit
46:keep
638:DGG
579:?--
538:.--
361:Deb
331:Deb
307:on
282:.--
188:TWL
125:– (
52:. (
645:)
618:)
587:)
560:.
546:)
471:)
463:.
451:)
443:.
431:)
423:.
385:–
367:)
337:)
290:)
238:)
230:.
216:☯
168:)
119:|
115:|
111:|
107:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
56:)
641:(
614:(
583:(
542:(
467:(
447:(
427:(
363:(
333:(
286:(
273:.
234:(
214:M
212:☺
210:C
208:☮
206:T
204:❤
192:)
184:·
178:·
170:·
163:·
157:·
151:·
145:·
140:(
132:(
129:)
123:)
85:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.