Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/May 2008
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kept
[edit]- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed 03:03, 7 May 2008.
This list uses only one source... The Forbes List. While Forbes is definitely a reliable source... no featured article or list should ever rely on only one source. But that is not the worst of it... the Wikipedia version of the list is almost a direct copy of the Forbes List (down to including little arrows to show how they ranked when compared to last year). That is plagerism at its best, and a copywrite violation at its worst. This list is closer to being a candidate for deletion than a candidate for Featured. Blueboar (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While an article definitely does need more than one source, it is more than possible to build a good complete list around a single source, although I do generally like to see a few citations and secondary sources in there too. -- Scorpion0422 23:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Scorpion, I've italicised two words to ensure your sentence isn't misunderstood. Hope that's OK, revert if unhappy. Colin°Talk 07:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove I don't know about the copyright issues and suggest you find someone who does (rare on WP). The Forbes list is objectively constructed (compared to e.g., Colin's Top 100 Movies of All Time) and someone using the same formulae might recreate the same list independently. That might make a difference wrt copyright. The single source issue is not relevant, especially when the Forbes source provides so much additional material about the candidates. Yes, it might be nice to annotate each person with more info, and that info might require other sources. The main issue I have with this, and one for which I'd rather AfD than using this forum, is that I don't believe WP should maintain any of all 20+ years of Forbes archive. Like many other "global" featured lists, we should present the reader with current information, and ensure it is kept current. The List of the 100 wealthiest people is the "current" version of this list, though its FLC seems to have stalled. Colin°Talk 07:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove, mainly per WP:NOT (not an indiscriminate list of statistics), but also the single-source issue. List of the 100 wealthiest people supersedes this article, and a year-by-year archive of rich people isn't what Wikipedia is all about. Drewcifer (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove, per Colin's argument above. I don't think a single soruce is a problem - we've got plenty of lists that draw the list itself solely from one source, as in the case of the olympic medal counts where the IOC counts form the basis for each of the lists on wikipedia. - Marrio (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.