Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest paid musicians in 2008
The |synthesis issue is a big one, in my mind.  You can see it blatantly in that the article lists the top 10 (as "sourced" from Forbes' top 5 and a blog), and then simply plugs Rotaru into the second place slot based on the two non-English sources, leaving a list of the top 11 earners (11 isn't exactly a standard measure, not outside This Is Spinal Tap|Spinal Tap).  As for , given the top #11 count and lack of any inline citations, sufficient, non-synthesized references, and non-English sources, I think it's a valid argument.  I'd have to disagree with you, Rirunmot, I don't see what makes it encyclopedic.  I don't think it's |notable, and it's on shaky ground as far as |verifiability goes, even aside from usage as a coat rack. ~ Amory
— User:Amorymeltzer, 17:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:SYN||WP:COATRACK||WP:N||WP:V (Wikipedia:No original research)