Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forbes Fictional 15 (3rd 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes Fictional 15

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

Delete - For the same reasons this was deleted twice before, since nothing in this new version, other than avoiding copyvio, makes it any more encyclopedic. This is a completely arbitrary list made up of fictional characters who have a net worth of anything the character's most current writer says it is. If the Batman writer says Bruce Wayne is worth $50 billion, the Iron Man writer could say Tony Stark is worth $51 billion. And Santa Claus has infinite wealth? This is all meaningless fancruft and completely non-encyclopedic. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. —Syrenka V (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG with coverage across media in multiple countries.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] Last nomination was 10 years ago so that doesn't count for much. An alternative would be to merge to Forbes if it had a section on the company's famous lists, but do the thing which requires the least work. No indication of WP:BEFORE either: lists are notable if they get media coverage which this plainly does. And if fiction isn't notable or encyclopedic then why do we have approximately 1000000 articles on fictional topics? --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm not prepared to wrote a !vote rationale, but I wanted to point out that the nom is entirely misconstruing the definition of FANCRUFT that might apply in AfD. A wikipedia article about fan commentary published in reliable sources whether journalistic or scholarly, is never "fancruft" in the sense of fan-generated content that is assumed to be unencyclopaedic by nature. Once an article has made it through the eye of the (editorial) needle and to publication, it is no longer "fan-generated content" in that sense. It may, of course, be inappropriate to the encyclopaedia for other reasons. Newimpartial (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mentioned in two non-primary RS'es in the article as it stands now, so GNG is met. The nom states that this was deleted twice before, but the first AfD resulted in no consensus. More tellingly, the complaint now is essentially one of notability, which is entirely separate from the COPYVIO reason it was deleted in AfD #2. It is clear that COPYVIO does not apply to this instantiation. Jclemens (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. If this were Wikipedia's own List of richest fictional characters, I'd concur with the nominator. However, the publication of the list is an event that gets coverage in major sources - here is Time, here's ABC (US) News, here's The Telegraph. I would be happier if the coverage discussed some impact of the existence of the list rather than it just seeming to be a cute annual tradition that generates coverage restating select portions of the list's content, but the articles do cover the history and methodology. Articles in multiple reliable sources that are focused primarily on the list indicate to me that the presence of this article is not damaging to Wikipedia --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nat Gertler. This isn't a referendum on Forbes's methodology; I'm sure this is mostly about fun, as fictional characters have no actual wealth. But the list itself garners significant coverage. --BDD (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've edited the article to add the references supplied by Colapeninsula and NatGertler (thanks!), and to remove the Luxist reference, which was deadlinked, and which I could not locate. I could probably have found more to add, but I don't think it's necessary at this point.

I've also added some discussion of the comparisons between reality and fiction that a couple of the sources make. This was to address NatGertler's concern about impact of the list. It says something about the world we live in when writers of fiction—even of fantasy, like Tolkien!—cannot match the real-world accumulations of some of our billionaires. If you want to make a case that the wealth of e.g. Bill Gates literally beggars the imagination, the Forbes Fictional 15 can provide you with ammunition.

—Syrenka V (talk) 00:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable Forbes magazine column. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you say that, given the extensive coverage in reliable sources? Newimpartial (talk) 14:28, 8 September 2017 (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.