Talk:101 People Who Are Really Screwing America/Archive 1

Copyright protection?
Isn't it a violation of copyright to post the full list on Wikipedia? I know that The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time by Rolling Stone previously had a list on it, but it was subsequently removed. Any thoughts? --MZMcBride 03:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it could be. By that "logic" posting a plot summary of a novel or movie would be copyvio. 71.203.209.0 06:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * An editor remove the list from 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America, saying: "copyvio as it is the author's research/opinion and the major point of the book". I think the theory also may be that the lists are separately copyrighted, so that copying the entire list wouldn't be within fair use rules. We can quote from the list for the purpose of commentary and we can summarize its contents (similar to a plot summary). -Will Beback · † · 08:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Is that actual Wiki policy, something determined through consensus, or just one guy's opinion? 71.203.209.0 09:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The latter. I left a note inviting him to participate in this discussion. -Will Beback · † · 09:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This book is copyrighted under United States copyright law. Without the permission of the copyright holder, it may not be freely distributed. To do so would violate the publisher's and author's ability to sell their product. See Wikipedia:Copyrights for more information. Thanks. --MZMcBride 17:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm the editor in question for the other 100 People Who Are Screwing America page. The understanding I have is that lists which involve editorial opinion are copyrighted and reproducing them in full violates copyright. The 100 is a pretty good example of a page that now contains a subset of the list and some commentary (hopefully sourced, I haven't looked lately). On the other hand, lists like "100 largest parks in North America" can't be copyrighted if they just involve collating of publicly available facts. Lists compiled by public polls are in a grey area, but as far as I can tell the list here is one author's opinion, and thus copyrighted. -- nae'blis 16:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
Hi. I've proposed deletion of this article, because there's no sign in it that the book is notable. If you have any evidence of notability, please add it to the article and remove the PROD notice. Cheers, CWC 14:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've objected. A google search shows a significnat amount of potential coverage, and I believe it is enough to pass a Prod nomination. No prejudice against an AfD nomination, though. seresin | wasn't he just...? 00:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think i Might Just Go Ahead and do that>>>.Tim1357 (talk) 01:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)