Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunday Times Rich List 1989

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 keep. Per consensus (non-admin closure) Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday Times Rich List 1989

[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)

There seems to be a 'tradition' of creating the lists in Category:Sunday Times Rich List, but these lists are the copyright of The Sunday Times and WIkipedia cannot legitimately publish them.

In your consideration please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunday Times Rich List 2007 and also the essay Wikipedia:Copyright in lists. Essays, of course, are not policy, but this one is a decent interpretation of policy.

This is a nomination for this and all these articles:

Assuming deletion as copyright violations please can the eventual closing admin consider a mechanism for preventing re-creation and creation of future versions? Note, please that the category and the template within the category are separately listed for discussion at the relevant venues. Those interested in participating there may find those via the category.

(Procedural note: I am about to place the deletion notice on each article, and relevant creating editors, the latter to the best of my ability Done) Fiddle Faddle 14:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 14:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 14:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 14:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 14:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You can't copyright a listing of names.★Trekker (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@*Treker: Yes you can, depending on what is behind it. See Key Publications, Inc. v. Chinatown Today Publishing Enterprises, Inc., 945 F.2d 509 (2d Cir. 1991). —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- - That's fucking disgusting, I hate copyright.★Trekker (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Sunday Times - if someone is feeling ambitious they can selectively merge, there is room. Lightburst (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No copyright problem - it is ok to reproduce a small subset of the list. See Forbes' The World's Billionaires. This is a standard UK reference tool for estimated wealth of prominent people, so highly notable for WP, similar to Forbes billionaires.--Mervyn (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I also don't see the copyright problem. This list looks merely factual. Can you be more specific? --Bsherr (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you think these "facts" are published by other reputable sources, you are wrong. As the ST frequently boasts, it involves a permanent staff of researchers, & much of it is frankly guesswork. Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created the STRL 1989 article last week. No Copyright violation here. Ultimately this type of list of names and financial sum accounts in quantitative order, is more akin to a sports league results points table, than any deeper creative sorting endeavor. Also, it is intriguing, and perhaps just a coincidence, but this suggestion of deleting all the WP STRLs articles came subsequently after I started this talk section the other day: Talk: Queen Elizabeth II, Listed as Richest Person in UK STRL 1989 --Death Star Central (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Death Star Central, total coincidence. I had not known of it until now. Fiddle Faddle 20:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - note, the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sunday_Times_Rich_List_2007 mentioned above refers to an earlier version of the 2007 article, a mass data dump of the complete Sunday Times list, not a small subset.--Mervyn (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--there's other reasons for deletion: the list, published annually, needs to meet the requirements of the GNG. In other words, other reliable, secondary sources should discuss them in-depth, to establish that there is some notability here. One cannot really argue "rich people are notable so this list is notable". Drmies (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, Drmies, the list gets lots of coverage from other media every year, a burst on release, then a trickle of continuous references. Here, for example, from the article's refs is their rival The Guardian's splendidly predictable analysis of the 2020 list. Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be true that, if the list is notable (which the existence of an article would suggest), the individual annual releases are also notable by extension? --Bsherr (talk) 06:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those who say that the STRL consists of mere facts, and facts can't be copyrighted, perhaps aren't familiar with the 'facts' in question. As explained in Sunday Times Rich List, the wealth figures are the result of investigation, analysis, editorial judgment and other journalistic endeavours, and represent estimates at best. Even the choice of names on the list is subjective, as there is no clear rule as to who should be included or excluded. In a way, the Sunday Times including a person's name on this list and tagging a £-figure next to it is no more factual than, say, Michelin deciding to award a particular restaurant *** instead of ** (and no, I'm not making the otherstuffexists argument there). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's much less true for most of the small group at the top of the list, the ones the articles actually give, whose wealth is mostly in shareholdings in listed companies which are a matter of public record. Hence some of the big movements from year to year (liike the Mittal family, down £4bn from 2019 to 2020). It's far more true lower down the list, where private companies, art collections & old family money is involved. Her Majesty (1989 only) is something of an exception to this, as is the Duke of Westminster. Johnbod (talk) 02:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it's a very small selection - the full list is nearly 1,000 I think. Have we heard from Murdoch's lawyers yet? No, I didn't think so. Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 12 August 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunday Times Rich List 1989

Sunday Times Rich List 1989

Navigation menu

Search