Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Great Black Britons

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. Tone 20:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

100 Great Black Britons[edit]

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

I don't think it's notable enough plus quite a few of the people in the list are only debatably Black Eopsid (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why I don't think it's notable: The whole article is based off what seems like one press release which was talked about in the papers around that time and then promptly forgotten although they did make a website based on the same concept. So it's basically an article based off one website (and quite an unpopular one at that looking at Alexa.com's statistics). Eopsid (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A list written by a non-notable person on a non-notable website. The Guardian's coverage is routine, and the NY Times source shows that this list is, patently, a load of rubbish (no, this isn't a racist jibe, but "The other 99 were scarcely much better known, though they included, on the basis of questionable evidence, a few long-dead Britons (like Elizabeth Barrett Browning) who would no doubt have been surprised to hear that they were black.", plus other things, kinda suggests that), and appears to be a press release by a book author for something else anyway - not really very reliable, even if it is hosted by the NY Times. There is also no sustained coverage whatsoever, just random things in conjunction with a particular story. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The accuracy of the list as far as who is or isn't black is completely beside the point, as the article is about the list (or the website that hosts it) as a document or work, and there are plenty of notable works that are complete rubbish factually. And so we can (and should) deal with this simply by judging the notability of the list (or website) itself, keeping WP:NOTNEWS in mind.
If the article is kept, the list itself should be removed, as the list is copyrighted as an author's creative selection and arrangement (who is included and in what order is subjective) rather than uncopyrightable fact. postdlf (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I nuked the copyvio list. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The whole thing is based on one NN person's POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2013 (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.