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 keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

100 Welsh Heroes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable, possibly copyvio. cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/200 Greatest Israelis. List articles that simply reproduce lists published elsewhere are non-notable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/Oppose deletion - a major poll in its context, which received extensive publicity in the Welsh media at the time, eg. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3249020.stm Consistent with the polls held around the same time in other countries, eg. 100 Great Britons. Deb (talk) 08:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC) PS. I have addressed concerns relating to the lack of independent references in the article. Deb (talk) 11:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. As explained at length at the indicated AfD, there is obviously no copyvio at all. If there were, we would have to delete (and no press could reflect) the results of Academy Award polls, and Gallup Polls, and the like. The relevant Supreme Court case (Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, 111 S. Ct. 1282 (1991)) is set forth at the above-indicated AfD. See also (with the same conclusion) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 greatest Romanians and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Greatest Britons; and note that copyvio wasn't even claimed in the failed Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Greatest American.

I note, as well, that this appears to be part of a series of PRODs and 2 dozen AfDs today by the same nom, of many most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A list isn't notable just because it has famous people, but when news stories about famous people are regularly citing their position in this list years after the event, it certainly is. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Nominator is mistaken in this generic non-notability claim about articles whose topic is a list published elsewhere. If simply reproducing that list, it would indeed quite likely be a copyvio, and thereby a reason for speedy deletion. But that has no bearing on the issue of notability. There, the criterion is whether the topic of the article has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources.  --Lambiam 05:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep I found mentions in the media, including the one Deb mentioned. →Σ ⚑  ☭  07:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I object to my close at the "greatest Israelis" article being used as a precedent here. No blanket declaration about the inherent notability of such lists was made, or even implied, in my closing statement [1]. There is no other policy or guideline that i am aware of that addresses such cases, so this AFD should only be about the notability of this list. And I don't know how much clearer I could have been that copyright issues were not considered as a factor in that close. No opinion one way or the other on this issue, but again, my close at that AFD should not be taken as any sort of ruling on an entire class of articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep. It's a good thermometer of opinion at the time. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 04:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keepas for the other similar nominations. It's not copyvio, as has been shown pretty thoroughly. As for the nom's argument, we have no such policy. If the list is cited elsewhere, it's notable under our ordinary guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• delete & probably ((copyvio)). While the list is of notable people, the list itself and the process is not particularly notable for its own encyclopaedic article, and the compiled list is a creation that would have its own intellectual property, and one should also consider the copyright implications. While others can reproduce it due to fair use our reproduction should not allow that under our licence conditions and its reproduction. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As to the copyvio point, that simply incorrect. As per Feist and its progeny. The poll results are facts, not a creation of the pollster. People voted in the poll, not the pollster.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. First, it is clear as discussed above that there is not any copyvio. In addition, nom's last sentence is simply--at best--inapplicable. As to notability, I agree with the majority of the editors who have commented on this page that sufficient notability has been evidenced. I also note (in accord with otherstuffexists, as a further observation) that we have thousands of lists of people from country x (or city y, or college z), which weren't even the results of polls -- just collections that random editors chose -- and this certainly has greater indicia of notability than such lists.

Also, I note that the strong majority of comments on the 2 dozen-odd AfDs that nom made of the same ilk are expressing keen disagreement with the parallel nominations. The AfDs, which are running concurrently with this one, can be found at most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Useful list.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:08, 10 October 2011 (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.