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 merge to List of billionaires. The List of billionaires article has copyright issues as Forbes own the research and limit reprint rights to their material. However, the title is an acceptable one, and the material contained in List of non-Forbes billionaires can be merged into List of billionaires as consensus suggests. SilkTork *^YES! 15:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-Forbes billionaires[edit]

List of non-Forbes billionaires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

We already have List of billionaires; this odd sub-category is not encyclopedic and unhelpful. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep or merge into List of billionaires - Is some WP guideline against such an article? The proposer's remarks do not seem too compelling. The List of billionaires article explicitely gives the list of billionaires as reported by Forbes, so this is not a sub-category of that article: it is as if we had (have we?) an article about nations not in the United Nations Organization, in addition to a list of those belonging to UNO. (Actually, we have at least an article on observer nations.) Goochelaar (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Is some WP guideline against such an article?" - Not precisely that I know of, other than WP:GNG. There's discussion of similar problems on WP:OVERCAT, although this is not a wp:category, so I did not invoke it above. Why not a List of redheaded billionaires with names shorter than 5 letters? It's a pretty arbitrary sub-categorization. What is special about not being on Forbes? Is there some implied controversy here that I am missing? Who cares about this? Is there discussion in reliable sources about this idea of billionaires not in Forbes? ErikHaugen (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The List of billionaires article explicitely gives the list of billionaires as reported by Forbes" - I noticed that, and that is obviously kind of a ridiculous constraint on an article entitled List of billionaires. I wonder if this precipitated the non-forbes list? ErikHaugen (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • wrt. UN nations: Being in the UN is _way_ more interesting/significant/notable than being in Forbes magazine, so this analogy isn't getting of the ground. In any case, we have List_of_sovereign_states and List of United Nations member states; I think nonmembers are noted in the latter. ErikHaugen (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultimately, yeah, verifiable data here should be merged into List of billionaires. ErikHaugen (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. An unnecessary fork of dubious veracity. According the list, Vladimir Putin has more wealth than Warren Buffett. The first six sources are fake or not WP:RS. — Rankiri (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with List of billionaires There is nothing inherently wrong with this articles but I think the topics would be better served as a "notable absences" to the Forbes list of billionaires rather than an articles on its own. -- RA (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with ErikHaugen. Not noteable. --→James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 03:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nomination and because it is a content fork. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge with List of billionaires -- Agree with Rannpháirtí anaithnid. There is nothing inherently wrong with this articles but I think the topics would be better served as a "notable absences" to the Forbes list of billionaires rather than an articles on its own.--Bugnot (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in that the grounds cited for the nomination are incorrect. The whole premise of List of billionaires is that it is the Forbes magazine list of billionaires ("This list of billionaires is based on the annual ranking of the world's wealthiest people compiled and published by Forbes magazine on March 11, 2009"). The basis for the nomination-- "We already have List of billionaires" or that this list is somehow a "sub-category" or that article-- indicates to me that the nominator hasn't looked at the other article. Unless one assumes that there are no other sources in the world besides Forbes magazine that may list billionaires, then this list can hardly be called "not encyclopedic and unhelpful". Although the reasons advanced for a delete are easily rejected, the discussion does raise an interesting point -- neither the title of "List of billionaires", nor the title of any of the redirects to it, mentions Forbes magazine, even though Forbes is the source. Should we have a section of that article about the "non-Forbes billionaires" referred to in other sources? Or should we move the title of that article to something with the word "Forbes" in it? I suspect that the proprietors of the List of billionaires don't want this article merged into theirs, but until that issue is addressed, this list of "non-Forbes billionaires" should continue to exist. Mandsford (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with most of the remarks by Mandsford, I am puzzled about what an article's "proprietor" means. Goochelaar (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Mandsford, please see what I wrote above about list of billionaires being forbes-only. It is very strange to give a source so much prominence that the page is defined as only the things verified by that one source. The correct solution to this problem is not to make a non-forbes list. "indicates to me that the nominator hasn't looked at the other article" - let's be nice. Or at least read everything I wrote first, please. ErikHaugen (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2010 (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.