Talk:Forbes Fictional 15

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 1 September 2017, see discussion.
Delete, 5 June 2007, see discussion.
No consensus, 6 February 2006, see discussion.

Lists Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Scrooge McDuck

The entry for 2013 lists Gatsby at number one at 65.4 billion. The Forbes List lists Scrooge McDuck as the richest with the 65.4 billion. 90.185.58.68 (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Sam

Who added Uncle Sam and why? The character reference supplied links to a real person so is not "fictional". Please delete this entry and question who added it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.34.223.1 (talk • contribs)

Well Forbes did put him in their list so I guess you can take it up with them. LukeSurl^{t c} 19:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are the Lannisters?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.15.99.78 (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discontinued?

I've noticed Forbes didn't make a 2009 list. Did the credit crunch hit the fictional world so hard that there are no more billionaires? Or have Forbes discontinued this feature for good? LukeSurl^{t c} 19:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

The 2010 list is not accurate. Somebody please fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewman327 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection

This article has been semi-protected. Semi-protection prevents edits from unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has at least ten edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed. Such users can request edits to this article by proposing them on this talk page, using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. New users may also request the confirmed user right by visiting Requests for permissions. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes lists

Per a request at WP:AN/RFC, this RfC is closed as wrong venue. Please use articles for deletion if you think this should be deleted. Thanks. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I happened upon this page almost a year ago and have watched it since then, reverting the continuous vandalism by IP editors. I've even had it temporarily semi-protected, which had no long-term effects on deterring vandals. Aside from adding a new year's list of names, there has been no further development of this page. Today, it dawned on me: why do we even have this article? How is a tongue-in-cheek list of fictional characters published by a single magazine considered notable? The article includes no sources outside of the actual Forbes list, nor are there any independent sources for most of the other articles included in the Forbes lists template, like Forbes Celebrity 100, Forbes China Celebrity 100, Korea Power Celebrity 40, Forbes Magazine's List of The World's 100 Most Powerful Women, Forbes Magazine's List of The World's Most Powerful People, Forbes' list of world's highest-paid athletes, and Forbes' list of the most valuable football clubs. At best, these are trivia that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. At worst, we're duplicating primary sources which runs afoul of WP:NOFULLTEXT and may be a copyright infringement. Either way, why do we have this stuff? –Mabeenot (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I just requested some level of protection for the article to control IP vandals. This article reflects something that is often cited as a cultural zeitgeist. Although I'll look for more secondary sources to add in order to give it more context.Andrew (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Delete Ask for reliable refs, give it a few months. If you can't find any refs or no refs appear, list it for Deletion. SD (talk contribs) 00:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless we can get some reliable secondary sources. I'm with SDnogo. If this list is "often cited" we need to see it ASAP. Joja lozzo 14:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the proper venue. If you think it should be deleted, take it to WP:AFD. This is an abuse of the WP:RFC process. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 00:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dr briefs from dragon ball is richer than those guys. He casually gave 10 billion to his friend so he could buy an island — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.98.97.118 (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing Vandalism

Anonymous people can't seem to stop vandalizing this page. (It is now 2015-11-15.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaumasiotes (talk • contribs) 00:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For more information, please see WP:TOP100 and Wikipedia:Copyright in lists. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]