Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of May 2008 UK fuel economy ratings A-D


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

List of May 2008 UK fuel economy ratings A-D

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

It is just a copy and paste of a large table of data found here http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/downloads/may2008.asp, nothing more, nothing less. I'm not sure which rule this breaks exactly, but I'm sure we can't fill Wikipedia with articles about public domain data tables, what would be the end of it? Habanero-tan (talk) 10:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest we add the related articles with other letters of the alphabet as listed near the bottom of the article too. - Mgm|(talk) 11:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep There doesn't appear to be a valid reason given for deletion. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  10:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I described the problem as best I could you don't have to be an unhelpful bureaucrat about it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Habanero-tan (talk • contribs) 11:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete G12 The reference page clearly says the data is under Crown Copyright so it's not public domain. - Mgm|(talk) 11:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/copyright.asp - Is this compatible with WP? It gives permission to reproduce as long as the copyright info is included. It is similar to the CC share alike licences commonly used here. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  11:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently, it does. In that case I think it should be transwikied to WikiSource which is a better place for statistics than Wikipedia. - Mgm|(talk) 12:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually Wikisource does not tend to accept statistics such as this. Suicidalhamster (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not compatible with Wikisource (or here) as it says the material must be reproduced accurately and not be used in a derogatory or misleading context, which is a restriction on derivative works. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've got to agree with User:Jenuk1985 here.  Since G12 doesn't apply, I don't see any defensible argument for deletion.  I do see an article based on sourced, verifiable information.-- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  15:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm not convinced that the material can be used without violating copyright. Under Crown Copyright, material can only be reproduced if it isn't used in a "derogatory" context. The Crown Copyright article says that the UK government does "not consider material under Crown Copyright redistributable under such licenses as the GFDL". --Megaboz (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment -- In view of the fact that some editors are uncertain about copyright in this case, I'll list the matter here: .-- S Marshall  Talk / Cont  16:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note – (edit conflict) I have also tagged the article as a possible copyvio as shown here. Note that this hides all content, but it is still accessible through the edit screen. I will also notify the article's creator about the possible copyvio, as recommended at WP:CP. MuZemike 17:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * !Vote changed to keep based on input from people who know more about copyright than I do. I'm not aware of any policies or guidelines which would require deletion, so we might as well keep it. –Megaboz (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep--I'm not a copyright expert, so if it turns out we're breaking the law, I'll render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. But I don't see a rationale for deletion here, even though I don't really see the point of having these long lists. It's not listcruft though, since we're dealing with real verifiable facts here. In short, I'm with S Marshall. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete / Move to Wikisource This article is exactly what point four of WP:NOTREPOSITORY defines Wikipedia not to be. Wikisource already host stuff under crown copyright, so it shouldn't be a problem there. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * On second thought... is there really any point in copying stuff that freely exists elsewhere? Move it to Wikisource if they'll have it. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Why move it elsewhere-- people do tend to come here first--and why not--we're a reasonably reliable general encyclopedia. We can deal with this and all subsequent revisions also--we are not paper. DGG (talk) 05:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That people tend to look at Wikipedia first doesn't mean we should try to host material that is better suited at WikiNews, WikiSource, WikiQuote or WikiBooks. Wikisource was started exactly for this kind of material and uses the same software so is equally well-equipped to handle future revisions. Instead of promoting people to drop stuff at Wikipedia, we should be educating them about the existence of other WikiMedia projects. - Mgm|(talk) 12:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Send to WP:CP as it seems to be a copyvio. Stifle (talk) 12:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash;  neuro  (talk)  23:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Response to Stifle: I sent it to WP:CP on 4 March, but they don't seen to have noticed. :(— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  00:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Listings on CP don't come current for admin attention until after 7 days, which gives contributors to the article a chance to address issues by verifying permission or rewriting. However, I sometimes peak ahead and so noticed this one. :) If I'm to be the closing admin of the CP listing, I'm going to need to seek feedback on whether this list represents copyright infringement or not, since I'm unclear the degree to which creativity is involved in this compilation ala Feist, "sweat of the brow" notwithstanding. I'll ask for feedback at WT:C. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Are Database rights even valid in the United States? ViperSnake151 01:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I should keep the copyright stuff to the copyright board. I understand (from my talk page) that there doesn't appear to be a copyright concern in this case, so I want to re-iterate that my !vote remains unchanged at keep.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  21:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just verifying that I wrote to Mike Godwin about it, and his e-mail response indicates that as long as the chart is not an exactly duplicate (as it doesn't seem to be, comparing to the Excel sheet), we're okay ala Feist. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2009 (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.