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 no consensus. W.marsh 04:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes Fictional 15[edit]

Seasonal spacefiller from Forbes magazine. I don't believe a list of fictional characters lited in order of made-up net worth is encyclopaedic at all, at best there could be a small note that it happened on the Forbes article to show they have at least a rudimentary sense of humour. Contents may violate copyright, if anyone cares. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 19:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge info from the Forbes list with the respective characters. They all have articles.--Esprit15d 19:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Er, yes, but in what way is a made-up net worth of any encyclopaedic value? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 21:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Every shred of info about any of the characters is made-up. The characters are fictional. However, Forbes is good for nothing if it isn't good for its list, so why not add it to the articles. Just because something doesn't deserve it's own article doesn't mean it has so place at all in Wikipedia.--Esprit15d 14:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I would dispute the assertion that Forbes is "good for nothing if not good for this list" since the ability to pluck a figure form the air for the net worth of Scrooge McDuck hardly speaks to the fitness of Forbes to cover real-world issues. This is, in essence, non-canonical fan fiction. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 12:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's encyclopedic because it has apparently become an annual series that Forbes Magazine has put out. -- OldRightist 22:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand - I recall seeing a fair amount of news coverage on the 2005 list (which is linked), but the page only has the 2002 list. Shouldn't be too hard to write out an intro paragraph and incorporate new information. The list provides an interesting reflection on pop culture and social values. --waffle iron 23:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete or Smerge. Lots of magazines have annual columns; doesn't make them notable enough for their own article. I would bet that the majority of the Forbes regulars don't even have Wikipedia articles. This article is just a reproduction of the Forbes article and is borderline copyvio. I recall that there were a number of errors and omissions in the 2005 version; it was just in fun and doesn't hold up to scrutiny. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 00:12Z
• Comment. Someone recently raised concerns over the copyright status of such lists but had to be selected by a panel not a vote to have status. We might want to seek advice although so far no-one has objected to my knowledge. I am partial to Forbes given that is where i got my username - Malcolm Forbes called his car Capitalist Roadster. Capitalistroadster 02:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You raise a valid point. Not deleting this article is postponing the inevitable. We are almost knocking on the door of such lists not being a part of WP policy. Hundreds of such lists have already by deleted. That's why I say merge, since the information is of interest though, and Forbes is both notable and verifiable.--Esprit15d 14:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If this list is kept, it will have to be updated regularly. You can see the current list at http://www.forbes.com/home/lists/2005/11/29/forbes-fictional-rich_cx_mn_de_05fict15land.html --Valentinian 11:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep good for wikipedia 128.253.214.55 12:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Good in the way that made-up facts about made-up people are good for all encyclopaedisa, no doubt :-D - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:18, 10 February 2006 (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.