Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Greatest of All - Our 50 Top Australians

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Greatest of All - Our 50 Top Australians[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article was PRODded by Drmies with the very sensible concern "There is no good encyclopedic reason to reproduce a list of something published by a newspaper--there is no secondary sourcing to prove that this is notable, one way or another." It was unprodded by Simmo86, who seems to do that with some regularity. So, let's waste a week discussing this. JBL (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JBL, I appreciate the ping and the AfD nomination. Your assessment of Simmo86's de-PROD, I share--an editor with so few edits who reverts a PROD without even the decency of an edit summary, well, a revert could have been justified as well, following WP:DEPROD. Anyway, I've given my reason and I stand by it. If this is to be noteworthy, there should be a secondary source that proves that this one newspaper listing is deemed notable by our standards. There isn't any. Drmies (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero evidence of any notability - this looks to have been a routine type of article. Nick-D (talk) 04:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Solely the point of view of one person representing one media outlet. Non notable. Ajf773 (talk) 09:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – there isn't even any claim to notability for this list, which is literally just one individual's opinions, printed in a newspaper, with no commentary from independent sources. One odd thing is the addition of an "Other editions" section at the end, which says "Other countries have produced similar shows" (huh?) and links to Greatest Britons spin-offs. In that article, which lists spin-off shows of a British TV programme, there is a reference to an ABC TV show which aired in 2012 and which was (probably) called "The Greatest Australian" (it was one show, not a series, and I doubt it was in fact a spin-off of the British show – but that's an entirely different issue. That article linked back to this one, but I've fixed that). My point being that if the list in this article was in fact a notable entity, it would hardly be mistaken for a television show... --bonadea contributions talk 12:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete many problems with this. Cites The Australian as source but link is to PertNow. Number 28 isn't even a person, but a band, AC/DC. Article has been often tampered with , such as Steve Irwin put in number one. Teraplane (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2020 (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.