Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/200 greatest Israelis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. - Mailer Diablo 11:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 200 greatest Israelis

200 greatest Israelis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Copyvio. Non-notable list, a google search for "200 greatest israelis" brings up zippo non-wiki ghits. MER-C 09:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 06:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel or Palestine-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 06:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, lack of RS, some people are not notable. Appleworm 10:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, identical in nature to lists such as AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies, which are not being nominated for deletion (despite being 'copyvio', according to the nominator). The list needs work but it is useful. Appleworm brings up a good point that there is no source, which was likely deleted from the internet. Even so, such a poll by Ynet (being the largest Israeli online news source), if existed, is notable on a national scale. Ynet needs to be contacted about this poll, but I think the article should be kept unless there is proof that this poll never existed. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 10:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    Comment:But I see the article AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies meets requirements for an article, demostrated in the lead section, clear criteria section, WP:RS and inludes a lot of famous films (which meet WP:N), while 200 greatest Israelis lacks all of this. Appleworm 13:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverified. The only sentence is not sourced. SmokeyJoe 12:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - article title makes this virtually inherently POV and no assertion of notability is made as regards the survey itself. Moreschi Request a recording? 15:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and NPOV AlfPhotoman 19:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopaedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information. Mystache 20:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. When I first saw this article created, I thought to myself, "should I nominate this for AfD?" I gave the article time, and clearly thought the article exhibited major bias. Real96 22:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. 99of9 00:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article title is not inherently POV as it refers to the name of a list compiled by others. However, delete unless sourced. A Google search brought up no hits. -- Black Falcon 08:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment it is unclear to me how "greatness" can be defined in a NPOV manner. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 10:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - not POV or OR per Black falcon, but does not seem to have (as of right now) a WP:RS. I would change my opinion were one provided, as the style issue can be fixed. -- Pastordavid 16:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete this misconceived list. IZAK 13:07, 9 March 2007 (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.