Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/200 Greatest Israelis

200 Greatest Israelis

200 Greatest Israelis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Isn't this just one long copyvio? Cf. with The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time, which was formerly a reproduction of that list, but is now about the list itself. If I'm missing something here, I will withdraw... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources, not primary sources. The YNet list itself is not notable. The number 200 is arbitrary. Categorizing some people a "Greatest" based on a vote with some undefined criteria is not objective, not useful and non encyclopedic. See also WP:NOTESAL. Marokwitz (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• Delete WP should not repost primary sources. However the list can be linked 200 times and used as a source: "So and so is such and such a number on the 200 Greatest Israelis list published by Ynet in 2005."BigJim707 (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. First, there is no copyvio issue (which is the nom's sole concern). It is the same as reflecting any poll--we reflect a great number of them -- that is the normal course. As in the List of Academy Award-winning films, and 1974 NME Critics End of Year Poll, and Gallup's List of Most Widely Admired People of the 20th Century, and List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2011 (U.S.). Without getting too technical, the key is: a) attribution; and b) format. As long as we have attribution (which we have here) and the format is not a mirror of the original format (which is covered by copyright -- we are also OK here), there is no copyright violation. Otherwise, we would be deleting all lists of Academy Award and Emmy winners and the like. Second, it is a national poll. Third, it is by a high-level RS. Fourth -- this is just the thing that readers have interest in. 13,000 readers in the last 30 days. That's something we should be sensitive to, under wp:commonsense.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep As long as reliable sources are provided, it could not be any clearer that this is a list created by the source, not Wikipedia. We publish lists on a regular basis from other sources, and Epeefleche provides but a small fraction of the lists we already include as a matter of course. Alansohn (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep per Epeefleche and this list is a fascinating time capsule and a reflection of the readership of that media. At number 10 is the winner of the Israeli 'idol' who bounced to relatively massive stardom. All 'top ten' lists and awards ceremonies are relative to the originator of the list. I might reconsider my vote if you add 100 Greatest Britons to this Afd. --Shuki (talk) 22:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Shuki, it's single source with very bad sample method and I doubt that the subject itself is of any notability.--Gilisa (talk) 07:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - This is essentially a copyright violation of an arbitrary, non-notable news website poll from 2005. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 01:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, as explained above, it is certainly not a copyvio. Any more than the indicated lists, or any other of the same nature that do not copy the format of any polls -- whether they be national in scope, or of people voting for Emmy Award winners or the like. That is why we are able to reflect such polls, and why multiple newspapers reflect such polls.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Strongest possible Delete - It's ridiculous to lean on one source only, whose poll represent nothing and we don't even know much about the full methodology in which it was done. This article create new very bad standard according which any poll that was done by and published in relatively large news website is legitimate nominee for new article (and we all know Wikipedia opinion on single source articles). I don't even elaborate on the issue of RS, because Ynet is certainly considered by many Israelis as website which represent certain POV-and it does matters when dealing with a poll. I don't think that this is a good article, it certainly stand bad standards. I think speedy deletion should apply here.--Gilisa (talk) 07:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I just read again the source-it's a complete mess. First, the poll represent the opinion of Ynet readers only, they didn't randomly sample the Israeli population-rather it was self report by readers of Ynet who completed the poll from their own initiation so it wasn't even a random sample of Ynet readers, not to mention that we know nothing even about their average age (in serious polls you try to sample only people above 18, it's certainly not the case here). Second, they don't tell much of how they chose the nominees to be included in the list of the "Greatest 200". They do tell that they get a lot of recommendations on who should be included in the list of the nominees but they don't tell why many of those they mentioned as recommended by the readers were not included eventually as nominees though they should. In fact, we don't even know if the same reader could vote more than once-which is very probable with online polls in such sites. Sum it all: It's nonsense, delete it without hesitation. --Gilisa (talk) 07:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - There are a lot of lists like these on WP, representing a number of countries, therefore, there is no reason not to keep Israel's. They are also based on voluntary polling across the media. In general, I don't really think WP is the place for these types of lists, although they don't disturb me. To me, it's enough that each person on the list is mentioned as such (thanks, Epeefleche). --Sreifa (talk) 08:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Sreifa, please address me to such list which is based on single source and refer to single poll. The notability of such poll is not much higher, if at all, than this of any daily headline report-so, should Wikipedia house article for every daily report in every different media channel? The answer is obvious. Single source articles are in any case not welcomed in Wikipedia and take in mind that Wikipedia is also not a news site and this poll have no other value than being some kind of news. For the sake of good standards I think it would be better if you consider this issue again.--Gilisa (talk) 10:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment- while it is clearly not a copyvio, I am not yet convinced it's notable. For example, has the list itself been reported in the news? (For the record, I only found one source from Google News.) I'm open to both sides. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)