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. Tone 13:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsere Besten (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☯ 19:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets notability criteria. Deb (talk) 11:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These lists are very useful for finding very notable biographies.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. First, I note that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Welsh Heroes, the closer of the AfD to which the nom points objected to nom's use of his close as precedent. He wrote: "No blanket declaration about the inherent notability of such lists was made, or even implied, in my closing statement [1].... And I don't know how much clearer I could have been that copyright issues were not considered as a factor in that close."

Second, it is clear as discussed above that there is not any copyvio. In addition, nom's last sentence is simply 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 (as wp:otherstuffexists permits) 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.

Finally, I note that at the 2-dozen-odd AfDs that nom made of the same ilk most commentators are expressing keen disagreement with nom's 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) 07:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly not a copyvio , as has been shown above, and equally clearly justified by notability. The supposed policy against such lists is entirely the invention of the nom. DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This AfD was not transcluded in the log. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 18:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - No copyvio problems. A discriminate list of notable people. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No copyright violation problems, meets all requirements for a Wikipedia list article. Dream Focus 00:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A properly documented list, derived from a German TV show, and interesting because it results in endless discussions about who is/was German nor not, which is fine by me. I know that being interesting, debate provoking, or even fun are not reasons for keeping an article, but this list is notable, and should be kept. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Fully meets requirements for WP:List, no CopyVios here. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:RPRGM.--Cavarrone (talk) 09:10, 11 November 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.