The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

El Gen Argentino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, possibly copyvio. cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/200 Greatest Israelis. List articles that simply reproduce lists published elsewhere are non-notable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Such polls can be of great significance in their individual countries, and this has not been taken into account. Deb (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Response Okay, is this one of great national significance, or are you just saying that it could be notable? Do you have any sources to support notability, considering how that is the original complaint? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just not keen on the idea of nominating all linked articles in this category as non-notable just because they are smaller polls than the "Great Britons" one or took place in a country English speakers don't know much about. Deb (talk) 11:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral leaning keep on the article itself, because my guess is that the television series would be notable (although I'm currently neutral because this has yet to be demonstrated). The question of whether or not this is copyvio (and thus whether content should be removed from the article) is separate to whether or not we should have an article about the TV series. —WFC— 15:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. 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.  --Lambiam 05:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. As explained at length at the indicated AfD, there is obviously no copyvio 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 (Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, 111 S. Ct. 1282 (1991)) is set forth at the above-indicated AfD. See also (with the same conclusion) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 greatest Romanians and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Greatest Britons; and note that copyvio wasn't even claimed in the failed Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Greatest American.

I note, as well, that this appears to be part of a series of PRODs and 2 dozen AfDs today by the same nom, of many most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The list might. I'd be surprised if the programme does. —WFC— 12:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not copyvio, and the only other argument for deletion is an imaginary policy. Whether the article shouldbe on the list or the series would need subsequent discussion. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These lists are very useful for finding very notable biographies.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. First, I note that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Welsh Heroes, the closer of the AfD to which the nom points objected 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 [1].... And I don't know how much clearer I could have been that copyright issues were not considered as a factor in that close."

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 consensus of the editors, a majority of whom have !voted !keep. I also note (as wp:otherstuffexists permits) that we have thousands of lists of people from 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.

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 here.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.