Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The most Influential people on Wall Street

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The most Influential people on Wall Street

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

Not sure where the list comes from, but no sources, although it's probably from some definitive one, so it's a copyright issue. If it's not, then it's original research. Title isn't a possible search term or redirect (or if it is it can be done much better on its own). Shadowjams (talk) 07:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be taken directly from this CNBC feature. This particular grouping of people doesn't meet the general notability guidelines since this exact list hasn't received attention in third-party sources. The article also suffers from original research and verifiability issues since it claims to be definitive but it is only a particular news writer's opinion. So we either change the title to "CNBC's list of the most influential people on Wall Street" and delete it as being nonnotable or we keep the scope the same and delete it because the information is original research. Either way the outcome is the same. Them From Space 19:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- copyvio of a subjective list. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "The most Influential people on Wall Street in 2010's first quarter is the following businessmen." Well, maybe they is and maybe they isn't, but either this list was plagiarized or it's original research. Mandsford 14:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Some famous, recurring, notable lists appear on the source's article, which in this case would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_Investor_%28magazine%29 (though it would need to be expanded to all 25 investors from the list). Having said that, there's nothing amazingly notable about the list, and the Institutional Investor article has no framework set up, so the best way to go is probably to just delete this. Blue Crest (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2010 (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.