Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of number-one hits in Norway


 * 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. 山本一郎 (会話) 04:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

List of number-one hits in Norway

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

User:Ulflarsen prodded with the comment: "A near identic article on the Norwegian bokmål/riksmålswikipedia were recently removed as the major Norwegian newspaper VG in a mail claimed that the article were a violation of it's right to the material, it has been compiled from that, so the article should be deleted here as well" and then User:Nsaa added an AfD notice. Technical nomination only. I cannot tell if this is a copyvio or not. Eastmain (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It has been deleted on Norwegian Wikipedia no:Wikipedia:Sletting/Slettet/mars_2008 after a letter was published at no:Wikipedia:Tinget claiming copyright infrigments, maybe because the list contains the publishers name in the article name VG (this is not the case here). This list can be compared to Pop 100 number-one hits of 2007 (USA) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsaa (talk • contribs) 02:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. They don't have a copyright on facts.--Michael WhiteT&middot;C 05:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have emailed with the newspaper and they were quite clear on that they have the right to this information. I have also emailed VG and informed them that there is a similar list as the one that were deleted here on the bokmål/riksmålswikipedia her on the english language version of Wikipedia. According to Norwegian law we can cite from an article in a newspaper, but the whole article can not be copied without consent from the news organisation and this is a similar situation. The VG list is compiled by the newspaper VG with the main record organisation in Norway and such can not be compared to facts like the Nobel Prize, heads of state etc. Ulflarsen (talk) 07:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article contains purely factual information. If prose had been copied from elsewhere then copyvio would be an issue, but I can't see how anyone can reasonably claim copyright over a list like this.--Michig (talk) 08:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, this list has no sources but I suppose it was written from Verdens Gang because the list says "This list shows all the songs that has been number one on the official chart list in Norway, VG-lista." The info can also be seen at http://norwegiancharts.com/bestall.asp. http://norwegiancharts.com/ said on June 15, 2006 "From now on, we are allowed to publish the "VG-Lista - the official Norwegian hit-chart" here. Thanks to VG for the agreement." If there is some copyright issue it may also apply to the articles VG-lista 1958, VG-lista 1959, VG-lista 1960, VG-lista 1961, VG-lista 1962, VG-lista 1963, and VG-lista 2006. --Pixelface (talk) 08:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, Verdens Gang never claimed any copyvio against Wikipedia but the article was deleted because a few users were overly precarious and believed they had made such a claim. The email say it might be a copyright violation, not that it is a copyright violation. The article is a compilation of published facts and as such is within the "right to quote" in Norway. The article is not produced by leeching the database, which is not legal in Norway. I don't think the last point has any relevance here, and only the first one apply. The articles VG-lista 1958, etc, might be closer to a possible copyvio as they seems to be complete copies for each years. Jeblad (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously encyclopedic - David Gerard (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep --Harrywad (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly encyclopedic, and a list of hits is not a copyright violation. The unlinked artists should be linked, as they are all obviously notable. Chubbles (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As long as everything is legal and all, it should be kept. Notable and not bad enough to warrant a deletion. Mm40 (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2008 (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.