Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic 100 Mozart (ABC)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was   keep. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 03:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Classic 100 Mozart (ABC)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable, and possible copyright vio. Almost entire article is a copy of the list on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation website.
 * Comment on copyright question: I have no opinion on the overall appropriateness of the list, but copyright concerns seem valid if the ABC offered a list of candidates from which the ranking was selected. Coincidentally, I have a question in to our associate counsel at this very moment concerning such survey lists in conjunction with User:Moonriddengirl/Copyright in lists. (If the list were the opinion of employees of ABC there would be no question of copyright; the question here involves when an organization offers a finite group of candidates which are then ranked by survey.) I've truncated the list to the top 5, even though per attorney feedback there may be issues with fair use in that, since the top 5 of the list is the most commercially valuable. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete There is nothing notable about these lists. Many classical stations have exercises of this kind, e.g. Classic FM (UK) which has been running five years longer than the ABC one and has attracted independent coverage in the UK. The only coverage I've found for the ABC lists is by the station itself. Voceditenore (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep for the reasons detailed at the Classic 100 Original delete discussion page. GFHandel . 20:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep for reasons detailed at Articles for deletion/Classic 100 original (ABC). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.