Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forbes Fictional 15 (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. - Mailer Diablo 10:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes Fictional 15[edit]

Finishing an incomplete nomination. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 00:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although a useful and interesting source for information in articles on the respective fictional characters, I am doubtful of the independant importance of this list, and as such the merit of duplicating the content of 2 Forbes.com articles in a Wikipedia article. WP:ILIKEIT, but I'm not going to cry if it goes away. -- saberwyn 01:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We can't just copy lists off other people as they are commercial property. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This may scrape past being a copyright violation, but it's definitely plagiarism. Plus, the list has no apparent importance on its own, so even commentary about it is not warranted. Mango juice^talk 14:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no copyright expert, but here's a source to compare the 2006 list: [1], and the 2002 list can be found on the wayback machine [2]. Looks pretty much copied from those two pages, with a little bit of consistency editing between the two years (originally, Burns was listed single [3], but in 2006 he was listed with one bastard child [4], so both versions were changed to reflect that. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 00:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable, possible copyvio. Tempshill 17:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unnecessary collection of information. JodyB_talk 22:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being as these are fictional characters, this list does not contribute to the understanding of anything, and as such is an arbitrary collection of information, in my opinion. If someone could prove notablility of this parody, it would be different. Someguy1221 06:18, 7 June 2007 (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.