Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of DJ Magazine's Top 100 DJs


 * 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 delete. J04n(talk page) 15:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

List of DJ Magazine's Top 100 DJs

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Listing for discussion under this provision in the Non-Free Content rules, that such lists can be a copyvio. Honestly, I'm not sure on this, but per the Associate Counsel's opinion footnoted there, this does seem to need to go. Also nominating List of DJ Magazine's Top 100 Clubs for identical reasons. Courcelles (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Courcelles (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Courcelles (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Courcelles (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep both — The counsel recommended using polls in accordance with fair use principles, reminding that merely republishing them without any commentary or transformation is not fair use. These lists have been republished with significant transformation (the added nationality rows, links, references, tables, styling & layout). Fair use applies here and further improvements can be made. It is also an opinion that the method used in selecting these polls indicates creativity. Also, the courts have not firmly established precedence on the matter. — Za  wl  07:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the WP:NFCC rules? You're violating a lot of them, #2, respect for commercial opportunities specifically by reproducing years and years of these lists. Courcelles (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete both the opinion of the WMF legal counsel is not the actual English Wikipedia policy. It is a footnote explaining how we reached the policy we have. English Wikipedia text copyright policy is significantly stronger than required under US law. The section Courcelles quoted was the direct application of our principles (we can't recreate these lists as a whole), but the deeper principles are actually higher up at WP:NFCCP. In particular, it fails the minimum usage criterion: the entire page is based off of copyrighted content, that is not reasonably construed as being minimal usage. Additionally, even if we took the counsel's assessment as being en.wp policy instead of the opinion that we based the policy on, this would still fail as there has not been significant transformation or commentary (flags and up and down signs don't do this). Finally, as it explains at the top of the non-free criteria page, the point here is to be a free content encyclopedia that can even be reused commercially. Nothing here could be reused commercially, and as such it falls well outside of our mission. Delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete both. Regardless of whether the content is a copyvio, some of the sources are extremely questionable (possibly self published) and there is an overload of stats that would otherwise violate WP:NOTSTATS. Ajf773 (talk) 09:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. both. no evidence it is a recognizes wualifiaction for notability   DGG ( talk ) 09:21, 2 February 2018 (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.