Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Time 100: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→2012 Time 100: Rebuttal. |
→2012 Time 100: tweak |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
:* Actually, according to Moonriddengirl, we can't even use a partial list, as the list itself is copyrighted. What we have to do is turn the independently sourced items into prose. It would actually be fairly easy to work that into a few sections, such as with one about the Gala and the speeches various awardees made (Colbert's and Clinton's). <font color="silver">[[User:Silver seren|Silver]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Silver seren|seren]]</font><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 04:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC) |
:* Actually, according to Moonriddengirl, we can't even use a partial list, as the list itself is copyrighted. What we have to do is turn the independently sourced items into prose. It would actually be fairly easy to work that into a few sections, such as with one about the Gala and the speeches various awardees made (Colbert's and Clinton's). <font color="silver">[[User:Silver seren|Silver]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Silver seren|seren]]</font><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 04:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
::*Their creative content of positioning on the list consists of taking a non-random group of 100 people, applying their own criteria, and giving them a non-random number from 1 to 100. Our filter of "article first" precludes a derivitive work, unless we had articles on '''absolutely none''' of these individuals prior to their list (we've said many of these people were notable before ''Time'' did), and an independenttly sourced alphabetical list or individuals we have articles on, with or without position would be a mere presentation of facts listed in other references, and does not approach the creative content level of musical compositions, lyrics, and written works which have separately been challenged and upheld. The facts are citable in individual articles; those we have articles on can be acknowledged as having been positioned on the list. [[User:Dru of Id|Dru of Id]] ([[User talk:Dru of Id|talk]]) 05:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC) |
::*Their creative content of positioning on the list consists of taking a non-random group of 100 people, applying their own criteria, and giving them a non-random number from 1 to 100. Our filter of "article first" precludes a derivitive work, unless we had articles on '''absolutely none''' of these individuals prior to their list (we've said many of these people were notable before ''Time'' did), and an independenttly sourced alphabetical list or individuals we have articles on, with or without position would be a mere presentation of facts listed in other references, and does not approach the creative content level of musical compositions, lyrics, and written works which have separately been challenged and upheld. The facts are citable in individual articles; those we have articles on can be acknowledged as having been positioned on the list. [[User:Dru of Id|Dru of Id]] ([[User talk:Dru of Id|talk]]) 05:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::*[[WP:LISTPEOPLE]] addresses only whether or not people can be included on lists per [[WP:BLP]]. It does not touch on the copyright status of the list. The fact that you would be clustering them in one place solely and demonstrably ''because'' they are on this list makes that unworkable, I'm afraid. Certainly we can have as many articles on these people as we like, but we wouldn't be including them ''in the article'' if they weren't on the list. Likewise, we can have songs on all of the people and events discussed in "[[It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine)]]" without any fear whatsoever of infringing on that song, but we can only bring them into the article on the song to discuss under fair use - and the more of them we have, the more likely we are to fail the fair use test. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 10:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 10:24, 4 May 2012
2012 Time 100
- 2012 Time 100 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Copyright violation, speedy declined by User:Runningonbrains, currently being discussed at Wikipedia:ANI#Copyright and lists. As this is still an unambiguous copyright violation, it needs to be quickly deleted. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep It's been blanked, it's good. The subject is obviously notable. We don't just AfD things that have copyright issues, we try to find ways to fix those issues. Otherwise CCI would be an easy job, because they'd just have to delete everything. SilverserenC 18:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- If the article titled on 2012 Time 100 deleted for this concern, so why not for this 2011 Time 100, 2010 Time 100 and so on articles? We try to find ways to fix those issues!--Aashaa (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I'm not sure we can host the list itself, but we can surely write an article about the list noting its reception by the public and the media. ThemFromSpace 21:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep- Well known annual list which meets WP:NLIST. Revdel the copyright version. Referenced discussion of the complete list from reliable sources. Per WP:LISTPEOPLE, individual entries who have articles and are independently sourced can be included. Article list should be alphabetical, preferably sortable, including positions only if independently sourced, too (could be same independent reference as entry). That's a lot of work, but would only be a complete list if. Dru of Id (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, according to Moonriddengirl, we can't even use a partial list, as the list itself is copyrighted. What we have to do is turn the independently sourced items into prose. It would actually be fairly easy to work that into a few sections, such as with one about the Gala and the speeches various awardees made (Colbert's and Clinton's). SilverserenC 04:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Their creative content of positioning on the list consists of taking a non-random group of 100 people, applying their own criteria, and giving them a non-random number from 1 to 100. Our filter of "article first" precludes a derivitive work, unless we had articles on absolutely none of these individuals prior to their list (we've said many of these people were notable before Time did), and an independenttly sourced alphabetical list or individuals we have articles on, with or without position would be a mere presentation of facts listed in other references, and does not approach the creative content level of musical compositions, lyrics, and written works which have separately been challenged and upheld. The facts are citable in individual articles; those we have articles on can be acknowledged as having been positioned on the list. Dru of Id (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- WP:LISTPEOPLE addresses only whether or not people can be included on lists per WP:BLP. It does not touch on the copyright status of the list. The fact that you would be clustering them in one place solely and demonstrably because they are on this list makes that unworkable, I'm afraid. Certainly we can have as many articles on these people as we like, but we wouldn't be including them in the article if they weren't on the list. Likewise, we can have songs on all of the people and events discussed in "It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine)" without any fear whatsoever of infringing on that song, but we can only bring them into the article on the song to discuss under fair use - and the more of them we have, the more likely we are to fail the fair use test. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)