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. Courcelles 03:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worst Britons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable list, no sources. Allegations of controversy are unsourced. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Expand and wikify. There is good primary and secondary sources for this article that need to be added in. Identify the historian for each specific bad Briton and it would improve the article. This [[1]] identifies the historians. They are some of the finest historians that the UK has to offer. Add the sources, and the article will be fine. scope_creep (talk) 00:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not about the people but the list itself. Is the list per se notable? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete True each person on the list is notable, and has a proper article here, but the fact that BBC published the list in 2005 does not seem to be. These kind of lists are being promoted all of the time.Borock (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at best the list isn't notable enough for inclusion. At worst it's a POV piece, classifying people as the worst in British history due to the opinion of a single historian. ThemFromSpace 01:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm biting my tongue not to make a "Worst" joke. This list is utterly subjective and has no place in an encyclopedia. Pure POV. Carrite (talk) 01:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A one time list by one (notable) news source doesn't make the list notable. If kept, the article title should be more descriptive, such as Worst Britons according to the BBC in 2005. First Light (talk) 04:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per First Light. No third party coverage, non-notable.Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 21:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a TV series based on this list would have been notable (which is why we have so many "Greatest Fooians" articles). In those cases it was the series, not the list, that was notable; a magazine article is probably no more notable than e.g. a scholarly paper, unless there is extensive follow-up elsewhere. I can't see evidence yet that this list has had that kind of impact. TheGrappler (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is? [2] Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 20:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is, and we do have an article for it 100 Worst Britons.Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 21:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly :-) The list under discussion here is a different list, published in a BBC magazine, but apparently not turned into a broadcast. 100 Worst Britons was a list that got a TV series and the TV series got an article. TheGrappler (talk) 22:36, 26 August 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.