This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 02:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure this was a very nice and much talked about poll, but at the end of the day, that is really all it was. A media organization conducted a popularity to contest to discover what a group of people thought about the impact of other people in the nation's history. The poll does not really prove anything about the comparitive worth of these people, and it really only amounts to personal opinion, albiet the personal opinion of many. I do not think, therefore, that this is particularly encyclopedic. Indrian 19:17, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - we do have other lists like this, see 100 Greatest Artists of Hard Rock, 100 Greatest British Television Programmes and 100 Greatest Kids' TV shows for examples. Incidentally, that "media organisation" was the BBC. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 19:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am aware of which media organization conducted the poll thank you very much. That is completely immaterial to the point, as is enumerating other examples of wikipedia articles that do the same thing. These lists are by their very nature POV due to the fact that they represent opinion not fact. The only difference is that they do not represent the POV of a wikipedia author, but rather the POV of a large group of people sampled by a media organization. These are not fact articles, but rather opinion articles (sure they are fact articles in the sense that the polls occured, but the occurance of an event does not automatically make it important, and the thrust of the article is expounding on opinion). Lists like this are created all the time. They can be fun, but they are not encyclopedic unless actually used to further some noteworthy agenda. Indrian 19:27, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep Of course it is relevant which media organisation conducted the poll. If it had been a school magazine I would be voting delete. It is a fact that this happened and had a very high profile. CalJW 22:01, 28 August 2005
    • Keep The article is entirely factual: it comprises facts ABOUT prevailing opinion. Simple as that. Ramanpotential 29 August 2005
• Speedy keep. David | Talk 19:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is how we get around the problem of wikipedia not being able to have opinions of its own. Kappa 19:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Fine as a marker in time, I have no problem with this article. Alf 19:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Widely reported on, commented on, etc., in mass media in the UK and elsewhere. MCB 19:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. But the title could be more precise, e.g. 2002 BBC Poll of 100 Greatest Britons Jll 19:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This was a very wellknown poll. Capitalistroadster 20:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are too many lists popping up in the media these days (well, in the British media at least - I don't know about other countries' media). They seem now to be a subtle way of advertising. However, this one was different: it was widely covered for a long period by many other media organisations. --Finbarr Saunders 20:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename "BBC's 100 Greatest Britons (YEAR)" (similar to "AFI's 100 Favorite Movie Quotes"). Otherwise, anyone can have their own 100 Greatest. But check copyvio issues -- can we use this content whole-hog? Paul Klenk 21:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• RENAME Notable.Rename to 100 Geatest Brits and Irish.--Play Brian Moore 22:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Of course Keep CanadianCaesar 22:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, of course. Zoe 22:20, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• This is up for vfd? Keep, keep, keep! Ben davison
• No question- Keep! --PatadyBag 02:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a growing worldwide phenomenon. They had 100 greatest Canadians, modeled precisely on the BBC poll. Don Cherry narrowly missed top spot :) Dottore So 02:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. I go with User:Paul Klenk's suggestion. Tommorow some other 'eminent' organisation may conduct a similar poll. This will also take into account the cricticism about the POV Tintin 07:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per suggestion of User:Paul Klenk. --LemonAndLime 08:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable TV series, which has inspired similar series in other countries. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Never heard of it but then I don't watch TV :) Radiant_>|< 10:28, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - this was a major programme on the BBC and was much discussed about in British media. David 11:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per suggestion of User:Paul Klenk. Piet 12:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename or Keep; deleting is asinine. Wally 22:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and Keep; the scope of the poll makes it noteworthy, but the title should be more precise. CancerOfJuly
• Rename to include "BBC" and "poll". --JimmyTheWig 15:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't think that there is such a thing as a great Brit (I'm kidding), but nevertheless, keep. Gold Stur 20:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Saying that anyone or anything is the "greatest" of a group is POV. (per Indrian) If there are other similar pages, they should be deleted also. If any of these are to be kept, they should all be renamed per JimmyTheWig.
  • Although I certainly agree that we shouldn't have Wikipedia contributors' lists of "100 Greatest xxx", in this case it's not Wikipedia contributors giving their POV. It's a major news organisation reporting on other people's POV - a different thing altogether.--Finbarr Saunders 14:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That should be reflected in the title, and the articles should include POV commentary (and I know that for most such lists, such discussion has occurred). Cmadler 11:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename. Also there should be some comment in the article about the block voting by students of Churchill College & Brunel university for their namesakes (which got them 1st& 2nd places).AllanHainey 06:51, 2 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.