Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Japanese respected by the world (2nd nomination)

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. Cirt (talk) 07:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

100 Japanese respected by the world[edit]

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

Delete. Inherently problematic list. JBsupreme (talk) 06:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These lists may be copyright violations. Furthermore, they are not properly cited to the magazine they were taken from. Finally, there is no indication that the list is notable, which could be shown if other media (beyond the original publisher) have discussed the list. I have found no Google News hits for this subject, although admittedly the news coverage could be in Japanese and not accessible to me. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i earlier removed improper refs, and tagged as unreferenced, hoping someone would provide them. no one has found references. if anyone values this list, i suppose it can be transwikied to the japanese wikipedia, where presumably it can be properly referenced. as such, no indication of notability is given here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the list were notable, then there would be reliable sources that talk about it, even in Japanese. I see no evidence of that. Further, have a look at the similar Time 100, published by Time Magazine. There, they discuss the list and offer examples of the individuals listed on it. They link to versions of the list as a reference. But they don't include the entire list, nor should they - it would indeed be copyvio, I believe. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, no, lists cannot be copyrighted. A choosing is not, per standard interpretations of U.S. copyright law anyway, creative work -- is not copytext that can protected. That says nothing on whether to keep it, but it's a fallacious deletion argument. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - My main argument is that the list is non-notable - no reliable sources that discuss the list itself are offered, nor can I even find a link to the list itself. Whether the list can or cannot be copyrighted, the source (Newsweek Japan) may claim copyright - though Newsweek Japan does not so indicate in a way I can discern. I don't think there is encyclopedic value in reprinting the entire list. Whether it's copyvio or not is a secondary question. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as this list has a verifiable source to identify it as being suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, and a weak but verfiable defintion to demonstrate that this is, in some way, a culturally significant categorization. Although list fails the basic principle that Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed, the fact that it features in a respected magazine suggests some notability for its subject matter. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interestingly enough, there was an overwhelming vote to keep back a year and a half ago; I note that one user cited some sources to show notability (the argument was "This is not a randomly assembled list. It is a list much like the Time 100, assembled by Newsweek Japan. Google Translated page [1] Some Japanese news articles about the list [2], [3]." I can't understand why those sources weren't added in at that time Mandsford (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I don't read Japanese, but in doing a search for English language references, it's plain that being on the list is something that is mentioned as part of biographical information [4]. As examples, [5], [6], and [7] are three different people whose bio refers to the Newsweek list. Only a weak keep, because of no sourcing. Mandsford (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2010 (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.