Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wealthiest historical figures (2nd nomination)

:{{la|List of wealthiest historical figures}} – (View AfD)(View log)

:({{findsources|List of wealthiest historical figures}})

Original research. This has now been cited by the New Yorker as "one accounting." Articles likely to be considered highly notable and on subjects with few legitimate sources should be held to the highest possible standard. Kyle Cronan (talk) 07:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I am adding the following related pages to this nomination because they are part of a "series" that suffers from the same original research:

:{{la|Wealthiest non-inflated historical figures}}

:{{la|Wealthy historical figures 2008}}

:{{la|Wealthy historical figures 2007}}

:{{la|Wealthy historical figures 2006}} UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - The subject is probably notable, and the article is sourced. I appreciate the definite substantial concerns over WP:OR and WP:NPOV, but those are better met through a big watchlist (has 48 right now) contingent, vigorous debate on page, and most importantly a clear explanation of the ranking criteria. If it comes out that the page is completely misrepresenting those sources provided, I'd change my vote, but as it is now I think this is a keep, but I wouldn't suffer any suggestions that the nominator was wrong in bringing it here. Shadowjams (talk) 07:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note - Someone should create a running list of similar pages/lists that would be candidates for merge-to/from. I suspect a lot of similar pages already exist. Shadowjams (talk) 07:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. That an article is OR right now (which this article is) is not necessarily grounds for deletion. Anyone supporting deletion should demonstrate that the subject is inherently OR, and that nothing can be done to change this. We do not delete articles based on their current quality, with the exception of unsourced negative BLPs and such. szyslak (t) 15:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Szyslak and Shadowjams. The fact that the article has problems does not mean it has to be deleted. The deletion policy is clear: If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. The fact that magazines use WP as a source is irrelevant: it is their problem, not ours. --Cyclopia^talk 15:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:OR. The concept of "wealth" is unclear and, in too many cases, it would be impossible to get an accurate reading if we take the definition of history seriously (i.e., the pharaohs of ancient Egypt). Warrah (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

:*In what sense the concept of wealth is "unclear"? --Cyclopia^talk 20:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

::For starters, how does one measure "net worth" when dealing with historic figures whose financial holdings were either never recorded or existing in eras before the establishment of modern currency standards? Warrah (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

:::Oh, that's simple. You don't include them, because you don't have reliable sources for their wealth. --Cyclopia^talk 17:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete all There are absolutely no sources for the rankings in these articles, not because nobody has looked for them, but because the sources that would be required, updated year after year, do not exist. The single Forbes source, which was the foundation for this whole series of articles, stops in 1998 and is limited to Americans: to extend it 11 years into the future, and to add non-Americans (and the exchange rates and inflation deflators needed to enable the list to be ranked) can only be done by original research. To accomplish what the article (and the series of related articles) purports to accomplish, which is a real-time, adjusted for inflation and exchange rates, list, could only be done with original research to populate the inflation deflators and exchange rates. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete all but Wealthiest non-inflated historical figures, abstain from that. They are inherently WP:OR and WP:SYN because they are computed by combining multiple data sources using an unsound, poorly-defined methodology based on historical GDPs. The lists fundamentally fail WP:V as there's no way to verify that the lists are correct; note omissions between the various lists. Also WP:N - there's no indication that a list of wealthy people sorted by fraction of their country's historical GDP is actually notable. The WP:CITE problems are serious but could theoretically be fixed. The deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wealthiest families in history may be of interest as that article had the same problems. Billgordon1099 (talk) 04:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Question: is this really the second AfD? If so, where is the first? I can't find it. Did the nom confuse a contested PROD (apparently there were two) with an AfD? TJRC (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

::Possible answer: I think you are right, TJRC: I don't think there was an earlier AfD. There were multiple PROD attempts, but I think this is this article's first time through this process. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• There certainly should be a list with this name (if not something like Forbes list of wealthiest historical figures), but this list is original research. Its combining a sourced list of Americans with an unsourced list of non-Americans. So if nothing in the list can be salvaged, we don't much have a choice but to Delete for now. --PinkBull 01:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - This article is undeniably of low quality, but (1) the subject matter is highly notable and (2) many, perhaps most, of Wikipedia's articles were once in a similar condition. The three tags at the top do a good job of warning the user about using this data, and given enough time, hopefully the article will be improved. --Bowlhover (talk) 02:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• keep, valid list article topic. Arguably a rip off of Forbes' research, but that's another story. --dab (𒁳) 13:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete :Wealthy historical figures 2008, Wealthy historical figures 2007, Wealthy historical figures 2006, but keep/merge List of wealthiest historical figures and Wealthiest non-inflated historical figures. It's too bad that this is set up as something that's going to come down to a "keep all" or "delete all", since the lists of wealthy historical figures for 2006, 2007 and 2008 are nothing more than someone making their own personal list based upon their choice of stats from articles from the New York Times, Forbes, etc. You have a list for 2008, and it adds "For last year's figures, go to Wealthy Historical Figures 2007." All we need is Casey Kasem to do the 2009 countdown--- "Microsoft mogul Bill Gates dropped a point from #7 to #8 last year, how's he going to do in this year's countdown? We'll find out in a moment, but first, a WHF Top 100 dedication for an aspiring multimillionaire in Bel Air, 'Dear Casey: I bought a lot of GM shares and...." Those year-by-year lists are silly. Mandsford (talk) 13:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep or merge all into one main article. This is exactly the sort of information our readers want and need. Bearian (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Wealthy historical figures 2008, Wealthy historical figures 2007, Wealthy historical figures 2006, but keep/merge List of wealthiest historical figures and Wealthiest non-inflated historical figures. In the interest of consensus, I'm agreeing with Mandsford and changing my above position. But please explain the methodology, and please clearly label the GDP-scaled values so they don't get misinterpreted as normal dollar figures. Billgordon1099 (talk) 05:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Per Billgordon1099 and Mandsford. The lists per year are unsustainable. I stumbled upon them thinking they were accurate and truthful but they are full of errors (years are wrong) and original research. Not the kind of material Wikipedia should be credited with providing the world with. The discussion pages already contains several remarks about validity of persons on the lists and this problem will only continue. As people on the list get older, the age needs to be updated each year too. Why is the age even necessary to include in the list? It would be better to just mention the year they amassed their peak fortune and leave out "age of death or current age" (morbid title anyways). / Fred-J 22:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep List of wealthiest historical figures; notable and sourced. --darolew (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep List of wealthiest historical figures and Wealthiest non-inflated historical figures. (probably combined). This material does have RSs. The deflation factors are not certain, but they are sourced, and represent (or should representy) the current scholarly consensus. Of course it's not exact, and there's inevitably a range, as the relative price of different goods has varied dramatically--but it is still intelligible to give whatever is the current standard interpretation. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• keep, valid list article topic. --Pressman2009 (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

: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.