Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 100 Most Powerful Women

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 of the debate was Sent to WP:CP. Stifle (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The 100 Most Powerful Women

This page consists solely of a list copied from here. Prod was contested. Delete as unencyclopedic and possible copyvio. dbtfz^talk 23:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The Forbes lists are not copyrightable. A list is pure information and therefore not subject to copyright protection.BehroozZ 00:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• No, since it's the subjective opinion of the editors at Forbes and NOT an objective collection of data, it is oh so copyrighted. --Calton | Talk 05:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but rename and source correctly and link correctly on main Forbes page. A short article about Forbes's list of most powerful women is appropriate, as other Forbes "top" lists have separate Wiki articles.BehroozZ 00:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I wouldn't object if someone wanted to create an actual article--even a stub--called, say, Forbes 100 Most Powerful Women. But the page that's at issue here does not contain so much as a single complete sentence of original content. I don't see that there's really anything to keep or preserve. dbtfz^talk 01:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I wasn't clear in my statement. I agree with you. I think it should be made into an article. Right now, it's worthless, but it could be worthwhile. Hence, I don't think it should be deleted, unlike some proposed deletions which could never be made into meritorious articles. Can't the article be retitled? Or does that require scratching this and creating a new one with the correct title? Edited to add: I just checked; this can be done via the "move" function. I believe then that the article as it stands now should be moved to Forbes 100 Most Powerful Women and then edited and expanded. BehroozZ 02:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand into a proper article. The list is notable, as is the source, but the list by itself, while not a copyvio as pointed out, could be seen as POV. A short paragraph at the top to properly explain the content would be great. Also, lists from previous years should be added. 23skidoo 01:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete: I think the subject matter is fine, but not without a clear definition of "power". Income or net worth might be a start, but someone like Angela Merkel should be qualifying as well. I don't think that anyone would consider the kind of power of Condoleezza Rice has can be meaningfully compared with the power that Oprah Winfrey has. If it's simply Forbes' list, that's OK as an article about a pop culture reference, not really for quantifying "power". (Naturally, since Wikipedia is unbiased there will also be a The 100 Most Powerful Men.) Peter Grey 02:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It is not "pure information" but the opinion of experts who were paid by Forbes to produce an article for Forbes, not for Wikipedia. I have listed it on the copyvio page. CalJW 04:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete even if rewritten, otherwise let the copyvio people deal with it. --Calton | Talk 05:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, copyvio. Sandstein 07:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• keep and expand this please Yuckfoo 06:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

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.