Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of islands by population


 * 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 of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

List of islands by population
The list in the page is a direct copyvio of the url in the "External Links" section. In addition to being a copyvio, the page it is copied from is an unreliable source - being some random persons collection of data hosted on a free web page provider. The idea of an article of most populated islands is a good one that some editor should take on. We should delete this irrecoverable bad article so someone can do that. SchmuckyTheCat 21:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It may need attention, but definitely it shouldn't be deleted. The topic is adequately encyclopædic. &mdash; Instantnood 21:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice vote, you voted before this AfD subpage was written. I suppose that puts you in favor of copyright violations, original research, and unreliable sources then. SchmuckyTheCat 21:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: No. Absolutely not. Plain figures are not copyrighted. More reliable sources are possible. &mdash; Instantnood 21:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Schmucky, ad hominem attacks are unlikely to convince anyone. jdb &#x274b; (talk) 05:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep if cited, it's a job that categories can't do. Just zis Guy you know? 22:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - There is such a list at the UN ENvironment Programme site but their database is still incomplete. While a single reliable source listing all the figures is currently unavailable, we can always find verifiable figures from individual countries official census data. Polaron 23:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no list of islands by population that I can find at the UN site, but the creation of such a list from the UN data would be great. All the more reason to delete this article so a new version can be written without the bad data in the history. SchmuckyTheCat 23:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, there is no list arranged by population. The UN always has its lists in alphabetical order. But the data is there although some are old and some are missing. Polaron 23:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Abuse of the AFD tag.  This article already had the template:unreferenced tag which is the most appropriate tag for the current state of the article. -- Chuq 23:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The numbers aren't the same as in the page that this supposedly copies; any correctly compiled list would give basically the same list of islands.  Izzycat 23:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * except it wouldn't, this list has islands that nobody else can even prove exists. SchmuckyTheCat 01:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

In the Copyright Act of 1976, Congress included in the definition of “compilation” the first express statutory link between compilations and original works of authorship “...that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes a work of authorship.” (8) Cases under the 1976 Act were divided about the continuing viability of the sweat of the brow doctrine. Some circuits continued to apply it, (9) while other circuits rejected it, requiring a showing of sufficient creativity in order to entitle a compilation to copyright protection. (10) The Supreme Court resolved the split in the circuits in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co. (11) In that case, the Supreme Court held that the white pages of a telephone directory (containing an alphabetical listing of all residents with telephone service in a defined geographic area) was insufficiently creative to merit copyright protection. The Court held that the requirement of creativity was not merely statutory, but rooted in the Copyright Clause itself. (12) Thus, the sweat of the brow doctrine was laid to rest. What remains is a thin layer of copyright protection for qualifying databases. In order to qualify, they must exhibit some modicum of creativity in the selection, arrangement, or coordination of the data. The protection is thin in that only the creative elements (selection, arrangement, or coordination of data) are protected by copyright. Explanatory materials such as introductions or footnotes to databases may also be copyrightable. But in no case is the data itself (as distinguished from its selection, coordination or arrangement) copyrightable.
 * Comment. Potentially useful article but marked as a copyvio. Capitalistroadster 02:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and revise. This article cannot be a copyvio. Under U.S. law (which governs wikipedia), you can't copyright mere lists of facts. See : jdb &#x274b; (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have just updated all the figures using census data as references. All figures are indicated with both year and source, except for the one with which includes Macau. The original reason for the nomination is no longer applicable. Polaron | Talk 05:56, 22 May 2006 (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.