Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le plus grand Belge


 * 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. I agree there is not a copyright concern in merely reprinting the list, and other issues are fixable by regular editing; therefore consensus to keep. Courcelles 23:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Le plus grand Belge

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable, possibly copyvio. cf. Articles for deletion/200 Greatest Israelis. List articles that simply reproduce lists published elsewhere are non-notable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep These lists are very useful for finding very notable biographies.♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. First, I note that at Articles for deletion/100 Welsh Heroes, the closer in the AfD nom points to objected to nom's use of the close of that AfD as precedent.  He wrote: "No blanket declaration about the inherent notability of such lists was made, or even implied, in my closing statement .... And I don't know how much clearer I could have been that copyright issues were not considered as a factor in that close."


 * Second, it is clear as discussed above that there is not any copyvio. In addition, nom's last sentence is simply inapplicable.  As to notability, I agree with Blofield that it is useful.  And believe that sufficient notability has been evidenced for purposes of a list of this sort.  I note that we have thousands of lists of people from country x (or city y, or college z), which weren't even the results of polls -- just collections that random editors chose -- and this certainly has greater indicia of notability than such lists.


 * Finally, I note that the strong majority of comments on the 2 dozen-odd AfDs that nom made of the same ilk are expressing keen disagreement with the parallel nominations. The AfDs, which are running concurrently with this one, can be found at most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Full justified in terms of notability and clearly shown by the arguments above and in similr cases to not be a copyvio.  DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)   DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I am quite interested in the copyright of lists discussion, unfortunately the link in question as the copyrighted source appears unavailable. If someone can replace it with an archived version I might have an opinion. If a source cannot be found, then there may be a problem complying with WP:V. Fæ (talk) 12:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete on grounds of doubtful copyright which may over-rule any other consideration. The copyright status of this list is not clear, as a ranked list based on judgement it may well be considered to have creative content. As the only archived version of the source website I can find, here, does not appear to confirm the copyright status, we should take a conservative view and consider this ranked list to have copyright per our legal advice summarized at WP:CIL. --Fæ (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ummmm ... not a chance. It is the judgment of the thousands of people polled. The applicable copyright principles are discussed at the linked page--it is clearly not a copyright issue.  That is not a "conservative" view -- it is an incorrect view.  If it were true, wikipedia and in fact all media would never be able to reflect poll results.  That's clearly not the case -- even laymen can see that.  As in the List of Academy Award-winning films, and 1974 NME Critics End of Year Poll, and Gallup's List of Most Widely Admired People of the 20th Century, and List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2011 (U.S.).  Without getting too technical, the key is: a) attribution; and b) format.  As long as we have attribution (which we have here) and the format is not a mirror of the original format (which is covered by copyright -- we are also OK here), there is no copyright violation.  Otherwise, we would be deleting all lists of Academy Award and Emmy winners and the like. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I cannot see any copyright statement on the archived website, could you link to it? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody referred to any statement on the website; nor would any statement override applicable law. The U.S. Supreme Court clarified the issue of the application of copyright to lists of this sort in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 111 S.Ct. 1282 (1991), in which it wrote (emphasis added):  "A factual compilation is eligible for copyright if it features an original selection or arrangement of facts, but the copyright is limited to the particular selection or arrangement. In no event may copyright extend to the facts themselves."  A screenshot of the list would, for example, be covered by copyright.  But the mere listing of the fact of the names of the people chosen in the poll is not.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please refer to WP:CIL, a ranked list based on judgement is not similar enough to the case law you reference to be relevant. It remains unclear whether a poll with a large number of participants is a significantly different case in terms of creative content from a large number of people on a judging panel, this is a matter to be clarified with the WMF legal team. I suggest further discussion is at the CIL discussion page rather than in this AFD. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Feist Publications and its progeny is the applicable US caselaw, and I see no ambiguity in the statement by the US Supreme Court that "In no event may copyright extend to the facts themselves". And, I might point out, there is, of course, a large difference between the judgment of one individual and that of thousands in a poll -- the factual aggregation of the facts of the views of others.  A pollster has zero "creative content" in the opinions of others; it is not the pollster's creation at all -- though the pollster may have rights in the presentation of the information, which is why a screenshot of the results as published by the pollster would, for example, be inappropriate.  Finally, if Feist were not the law of the land, but the opposite were true, we would have to delete from wp every reflection of Academy Award winners, and Emmy Award winners, and Gallup Polls, etc.  But not only that -- all of the media that does in fact reflect such results would be violating copyright laws -- clearly, there's no reason to think that is the case, as it is normal course for media to reflect all manner of poll and award results.  That's simply, and clearly, not the case. --Epeefleche (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This AfD was not transcluded in the log. &mdash; Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 18:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - This article provides a useful means of listing biography articles, and per user:Epeefleche above, there's no copy-vio problem whatsoever. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that AfD is a poor place to resolve a copyvio issue for which we have already received WMF legal advice. I'm afraid that the opinions of editors do not over-ride such advice and suggest this AfD closes so that we can follow the normal copyvio process. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest that this be closed a keep, as reflected above. If any editor wishes to discuss copyvio issues further, I suggest that they raise the issue at the copyvio noticeboard as to all such polls -- including every poll on wp such as the Category:Time (magazine) 100 Lists, every Gallup list such as the Gallup's List of Most Widely Admired People of the 20th Century, every Academy Award list, every sports list determined by poll, every poll of critics such as the 1974 NME Critics End of Year Poll, every Category:College football rankings (as they are determined by poll), and every election that is not subject to an exception from the copyright laws.  These are just a smattering of the hundreds of poll results covered on wikipedia, and in normal course by media in general -- does anyone honestly think that both the media and wp are forbidden by US copyright law from reflecting the poll results of the Academy Awards?  This is a complete non-issue. Even a sysop law professor, just 2 months ago, has indicated that there is "clearly" no copyvio issue lists of this sort.  I would suggest that the discussion also include an explanation by the person starting it as to how they distinguish Feist, and why they believe the media covers all such poll results as a matter of course, with no apparent concern for copyright violations.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) Whether someone has won an academy award or not is quite different from a list showing judgement whether someone is the 19th or 21st most notable muslim of 2011. As suggested before, CIL discussion page is a better place for use to ask for a better interpretation from the WMF legal team on how we interpret their advice for polls, which may be commissioned and later published in a large variety of ways. --Fæ (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If anything, the balance is in the other direction.  The Academy Award is a poll of a professional honorary organization, overseen by a Board of Governors.  The opinions of memebers of an organization overseen by a Board of Governors would, one would think, be more likely to attract copyvio protection than would the opinions of respondents in a national poll. The same with a Time magazine poll.  The same with an NME Critics Poll.  The same with every football and other sports poll.  And, as indicated, a Gallup Poll.  I've quoted the relevant US Supreme Court case, and haven't seen any legal analysis --certainly none discussing US caselaw -- suggesting why its clear language is inapplicable.  I haven't seen any explanation either as to why -- under the legal analysis of anyone who thinks there is a copyvio -- all of the aforementioned, some of which are opinions of organizations (rather than thousands of non-organization individuals) are distinguishable, or whether the person who thinks it is a copyvio thinks that all polls are copyvios ... in short, I haven't seen a US law-based analysis other than one that shows there to be no copyvio, and I haven't seen anything that distinguishes all of the above polls or explains why they are reflected as a matter of course by media.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Response I'm not a legal scholar, I just figured that this type of article might be a copyright violation since it reproduces in its entirety the work of someone else which is presumably not in the public domain. I raised the issue at the prior AfD and some persons agreed, others didn't. I linked it so that everyone can read it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Understood. I am a lawyer with decades of experience who has dealt with copyright law in the course of my practice, including its application to lists of facts and the application of Feist.  The law is as quoted above -- if there were a reproduction in format, there would be a copyvio, but the reflection of the facts is not a copyvio. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that these are neither facts nor statistics, the distinction is made at WP:CIL. Fæ (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * These are certainly facts. The fact is the aggregate view (note:  not even the individual views of those polled), of those polled.  The same as all the aforementioned polls are facts.  How else do you explain the fact that vast swaths of media reflect all of the above polls?  Who in the world do you think has a copyright interest?  The pollster does not -- it is not their view, and they did not create the responses; only the format of their presentation.  Those polled have nothing reflected that reflects their personal view even ... this doesn't even rise to the level of a film critic saying "this is my personal view".  There is nothing to which copyright adheres -- if you think there is, please explain how the world reflects all the aforementioned polls.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am expressing my understanding of the WMF attorney feedback, I have already invited you to collaborate on the relevant discussion. As for the interests of this particular pollster or whether they declare a copyright or not, the source website is not available and the archived versions appear incomplete so I am not certain anyone could answer your questions or verify your assumptions. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I stand by the points made above, especially: 1) the specific discussion of the caselaw, 2) the opinion expressed by the law professor, and 3) the readily apparent reflection of aggregate poll results by all manner of top-flight media sources. As to whether the publication claimed copyright protection vis-a-vis the results of the poll, as I indicated there is no evidence that they did, nor would it override the law as reflected in Feist.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep As with the others just like this. Not copyright violation, and it meets all requirements for a Wikipedia list article.   D r e a m Focus  23:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I see no CopyVios, it passes WP:List. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:39, 8 November 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.