List of wealthiest historical figures: I agree that this article is WP:OR and WP:LISTCRUFT .  The stated amount of the wealth is broadly inconsistent among the low quality sources that provide coverage to this subject.  Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk ) 04:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The last nom was in 2009, so this isn't a frivolous renom.  A list like this is inherently unworkable.  Estimating the net worth of historical figures is fraught with uncertainty, and it's not clear that you can meaningfully compare the net worth of people who died hundreds or even thousands of years apart.  The criter for what qualifies one to be on this list is also very unclear.  Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 04:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Honestly, the sheer breadth of time involved makes this type of list unworkable.  Furthermore, the fact that the sources evidently do not agree is another severe issue with listing historical figures by wealth.  ― Susmuffin Talk 07:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Unlike lists such as those of the tallest mountain, oldest living person, etc., there is no possible way to make anywhere near accurate estimates.  That's abundantly clear for historical figures where not only are there almost insurmountable problems to convert what we think is their wealth to current values, we often cannot be sure we have sufficient evidence.  Even with living people it's difficult to determine.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller ( talk • contribs ) 08:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment in its current state, the list is clearly unworkable.  It attempts to give extensive information on each individual, which means it's going to have to find an unreasonably tight criterion on richness to avoid being huge.  And the inflation-adjusted wealth values are pretty meaningless as one goes back into the mists of time.  But , I think there is a case for a simple navigational list, made up only of article-names, pointing to articles of historical figures who are particularly noted for being outrageously wealthy (e.g. Croesus ).  This is clearly a reasonable encyclopaedic question that a reader might ask, and they can browse the articles on the individuals themselves.  It would also be easy to define (must have an existing article, WP article must cite multiple references mentioning enormous wealth specifically; usually wealth would feature in the Lead) and it wouldn't need to address quantitatively wealth-in-modern-terms (that, if estimates are available and deemed useful, belongs in the target article).  Elemimele ( talk ) 08:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Hemiauchenia .  This just devolves to guesswork.  〜 Festucalex • talk 08:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , History ,  and Economics .  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 17:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as necessarily requiring original research .  If you find a list that is well-attested and agreed to along with criteria that is rigorous, by all means let us know.  But Wikipedia cannot create that list.  jps ( talk ) 21:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per all the arguments given above.  I concur with Elemimele's comment- there might be a case for something like a "list of historical figures noted for their wealth," but this article as it stands (the ranking and equation stuff) represents an untenable project, and it's impossible to imagine a version of it that avoids OR, SYNTH, etc (unless it's just reproducing a list given in an RS).  Yspaddadenpenkawr ( talk ) 15:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete because the list of such figures is ambiguous (pre-Industrial Revolution wealth is nearly impossible to precisely measure), seems to heavily include English nobility but not that of many other European countries or regions, and is dynamic--new discoveries could change the numbers.  I would keep or note the Industrial Revolution magnates, whose wealth is less ambiguous and can be adjusted for inflation though in a separate article.  JohnAdams1800 ( talk ) 00:49, 29 July 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete