Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AZA member zoos and aquariums


 * 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.  Majorly   (hot!)  16:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

List of AZA member zoos and aquariums

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:NOT - Directory listings, including full addresses and links to websites. Masaruemoto 01:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I worked on this at one point, but it provides nothing that e.g. List of zoos can't. I would co-nominate List of CAZA member zoos and aquariums & List of WAZA member zoos and aquariums for the same reasons. --Dhartung | Talk 03:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep list, delete addresses and website links . The list itself is fine but I don't see why it can't stay provided the addresses go.  Additionally, List of zoos is not the same as the list of zoos that are members of the AZA. Cburnett 04:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC) (I would rather have the addresses deleted than the list but I still think city and state should remain. Cburnett 00:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC))
 * Delete. If it matters to Wikipedia whether on not an institution is a member of the AZA then the fact should be mentioned in the institution's own article. As to this list, let the AZA publish its own directory. BTLizard 09:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Lists are navigational guides. By your argument, things like List of ambassadors to the United Nations should be deleted too, which is frankly absurd.  With addresses removed, it is not a directory.  A list of things does not make it a directory and the examples at WP:NOT do not compare to this list.  Cburnett 16:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - It seems that many users don't realize List_guideline exists. --Remi 09:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. It does exist, but I don't see that it helps. Surely WP:NOT is the relevant criterion. BTLizard 09:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as copyvio. Isn't this entire list merely a reformated copy of (reference) page linked on the bottom? Carlossuarez46 20:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Lists of facts are not copyrightable. Corvus cornix 21:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is the formatting of facts that is copyrightable, not the facts themselves. Sorry, but to consider that, say, a list of planets in the solar system is copyrightable is absurd.  More absurd than a list of zoos (sans addresses) being considered a directory. :) Cburnett 23:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The consensus as it relates to various top 100 or top 50 lists is that they are copyrightable, and regardless of how the formatting has been changed, it's copyvio to repeat them here verbatim. If lists of facts are not copyrightable but merely their formatting, then one could copy an almanac into unformatted text, or the CRC, or the PDR, or any other "lists" of "facts". I am skeptical. Carlossuarez46 16:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The consensus is that various "top 100" lists that have subjective criteria for their listing is that they're copyrighted. This is an objective list that has no voting or judging criteria, therefore this is no more a copyvio than a list of NBA teams.  Corvus cornix 18:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You need to read Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service. In short: a list of members of a group is not copyrightable because there is no originality, no creativity to make that list.  Like I said, facts cannot be copyrighted but their formatting [and presentation] can be.  Period.  Cburnett 00:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.  -- Pax:Vobiscum 15:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is NOT exact copy of the table taken from the link at the bottom, so I do not see copyright violations. The list is well wikified. Most important, it may be helpful for some readers, which I think is the ultimate criterion.Biophys 18:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, well, see WP:USEFUL. Corvus cornix 21:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I looked at WP:USEFUL. But this "is not a policy or guideline". Biophys 21:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. If this list goes, so much a lot of other lists.BeckyAnne 21:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Corvus cornix 19:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per the very good reasons given by Cburnett. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 17:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Wouldn't Category:AZA member zoos and aquariums possibly be a better solution than a list? &mdash; Scientizzle 15:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I support the leaving of the city and state. You can't add city & state to categories.  Cburnett 00:31, 3 May 2007 (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.