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 delete. Clear consensus is that this is a copyrightable list, which precludes us from having an article that merely is the list (i.e., reproduces it); and that the list itself is not notable, which precludes us from having an article about the list as a topic. postdlf (talk)
16:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep: This is list of richest Indians by notable magazine in vast area of
Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). Many Indians are working there, rather that area is known for Indian business people. So this list deserves place on Wikipedia. I have done some copy editing on the list. --
Human3015TALK23:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Depends on how they determine wealth. If it's a straightforward amalgamation of facts - say, based on tax records - there's no creativity in the list. If there is creativity in the list, say if they use complex characteristics to determine wealth (estimates of stock value, maybe), then there could be. I probably shouldn't weight in on my thoughts on retention of this list, but I'm concerned about this list for other reasons. The Forbes List is annually updated. This list is likely to go out of date instantly. That could be remedied by clarity that it is the "50 Foo as of October 2015" but that only highlights the essential question: so what? What is the encyclopedic value of knowing the 50 Foo as of date? And what are the potential safety or privacy implications of having your name posted forever on a top 10 website in the world listing you as massively wealthy? Aside from the copyright concerns, I don't believe that this list should be included, unless it is a regularly updated feature. --
Moonriddengirl(talk)12:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)reply
This page indicates the methodology employed by the magazine: "... put together over the course of the last year by a dedicated team of researchers... we have estimated the value of their assets, taken their shareholdings into account and projected a company value ... this is purely our estimate of the Gulf’s richest Indians". For me, that is clear indication of the publication's creativity in their list.
AllyD (
talk)
20:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)reply
That's creative compilation in a nutshell. The page has now been blanked with {{copyvio}},
AllyD. If the determination is that the list is notable, we will have to turn into an article about the list, not a recreation of it. For those unfamiliar, see
WP:TOP100. Just to be clear here, the issue is that this is not fact they are reproducing. They are speculating. Speculation is creative. --
Moonriddengirl(talk)12:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete: A
WP:COPYVIO of one of many lists put together by this particular publication, without context or additional information. Fails
WP:GNG in itself and doesn't really provide enough to enhance and expand articles under the Indian diaspora categories.
AllyD (
talk)
20:51, 19 October 2015 (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.
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 delete. Clear consensus is that this is a copyrightable list, which precludes us from having an article that merely is the list (i.e., reproduces it); and that the list itself is not notable, which precludes us from having an article about the list as a topic. postdlf (talk)
16:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep: This is list of richest Indians by notable magazine in vast area of
Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). Many Indians are working there, rather that area is known for Indian business people. So this list deserves place on Wikipedia. I have done some copy editing on the list. --
Human3015TALK23:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Depends on how they determine wealth. If it's a straightforward amalgamation of facts - say, based on tax records - there's no creativity in the list. If there is creativity in the list, say if they use complex characteristics to determine wealth (estimates of stock value, maybe), then there could be. I probably shouldn't weight in on my thoughts on retention of this list, but I'm concerned about this list for other reasons. The Forbes List is annually updated. This list is likely to go out of date instantly. That could be remedied by clarity that it is the "50 Foo as of October 2015" but that only highlights the essential question: so what? What is the encyclopedic value of knowing the 50 Foo as of date? And what are the potential safety or privacy implications of having your name posted forever on a top 10 website in the world listing you as massively wealthy? Aside from the copyright concerns, I don't believe that this list should be included, unless it is a regularly updated feature. --
Moonriddengirl(talk)12:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)reply
This page indicates the methodology employed by the magazine: "... put together over the course of the last year by a dedicated team of researchers... we have estimated the value of their assets, taken their shareholdings into account and projected a company value ... this is purely our estimate of the Gulf’s richest Indians". For me, that is clear indication of the publication's creativity in their list.
AllyD (
talk)
20:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)reply
That's creative compilation in a nutshell. The page has now been blanked with {{copyvio}},
AllyD. If the determination is that the list is notable, we will have to turn into an article about the list, not a recreation of it. For those unfamiliar, see
WP:TOP100. Just to be clear here, the issue is that this is not fact they are reproducing. They are speculating. Speculation is creative. --
Moonriddengirl(talk)12:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete: A
WP:COPYVIO of one of many lists put together by this particular publication, without context or additional information. Fails
WP:GNG in itself and doesn't really provide enough to enhance and expand articles under the Indian diaspora categories.
AllyD (
talk)
20:51, 19 October 2015 (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.