Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of number-one hits of 2011 (Switzerland)


 * 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 In that we're two days past the regular closing time, and it involves a fundamental issue, this one deserves a (long) explanation. Copyright violation is a serious matter, and even one !delete based on a true copyright problem can trump all other arguments. The nominator raises a good question to consider. The swisscharts.com has its own ongoing list (linked in the article itself) of the progression of number one hits, and one could view this as an exact copy of that list that cannot be rewritten. On the other hand, as others have pointed out, what's here is a list of nothing more than the top song on a Top 20, and an attributed report of a fact drawn from a copyrighted source is not, in and of itself, a copyright violation. Finally, compilers of sales figures, viewer ratings, and critics' choices (such as Billboard magazine) do not necessarily object to some of it being repeated, in that it reinforces the perception of the compiler as the authority on a subject. As pointed out by both sides, there is a plethora of lists of this nature on Wikipedia, and if it were a copyright violation, then we would indeed have to "delete this and all similar articles". Ultimately, the common sense approach (and I'm not at all saying that anyone in this discussion is lacking in common sense) is to recognize that the Wikimedia Foundation, which has its own legal advisors on matters of copyright, has been permitting articles of this nature for nearly a decade. If this were indeed seen as a problem by the legal department, then it would have been remedied long before 2011. (Most of this was written before User:Moonriddengirl received a reply from Wikimedia associate counsel; the new message and the edit conflict coincided. Counsel, as she notes, had no definitive answer.  If this were perceived as a clearcut copyvio, then this and all similar articles would immediately be deleted.  If, upon further consideration Wikimedia feels that this and similar articles expose the Foundation to a lawsuit, then those articles will be deleted without a discussion in the AfD forum.)  Anyone may challenge this "keep", but this discussion is not going to set any precedent. Mandsford 02:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

List of number-one hits of 2011 (Switzerland)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I'm not sure how this nomination will go over as I realize there are many similar pages and similar kinds of pages across Wikipedia. There's the multi-year whole family of Switzerland articles like this one, for example List of number-one hits of 2010 (Switzerland), List of number-one hits of 2009 (Switzerland), etc.

My concern is the wholesale copying of material from external commercial Web sites to build this article. The refs quite appropriately point to Source 1 and Source 2. (Both are run by the same company.) Source 2 is a weekly list of 20 singles. The article creator has copied the #1 song and pasted it. Checking various weeks may mean selecting a week from a drop-down list, and gathering the info means ignoring 19 other songs on the list, but otherwise we're just ripping off that first song from every iteration of the list.

It's even more blatant with Source 1, which I invite you to compare with the upper part of the nominated article. At the end of the year, the upper table will be an exact replica of the source Web page, minus the single cover images. The WP page offers no commentary about the singles, no historical information beyond the dates they hit #1, no additional value of any kind. The source has no other info on it besides the cover images mentioned and some navigation menus, so we are not merely using an excerpt in some fair-use way. We are duplicating the entire page of a commercial site.

WP:COPYVIO tells us "material copied from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed without the permission of the copyright holder (unless brief quotation used in accordance with non-free content policy and guideline) is likely to be a copyright violation." That certainly applies in the case of the upper table relating to the German-speaking part of Switzerland. The Romandie section, covering the French-speaking portion, is less blatant because we're taking one song from a list of 20. The parallel operation for the albums in Romandie takes one from a list of 50. Older sisters of this list like like 2010's include top-ten year-end copied in bulk from yet another page.

In any case we're making too sweeping a harvest of other people's work, clear-cutting huge swaths of intellectual property we are not using fairly. If we have something to say about the number-one hits of Switzerland, or if we're writing about "Tik Tok" and point to its Swiss chart peak, then okay, but all we're doing here is republishing lists from Hung Medien's Swiss sites. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 *  Speedy keep Besides the tl;dr deletion rationale, there is a very strong precedent that it's acceptable to have lists like "List of number-one hits of [year] in [country with a valid singles chart]". I'm amazed that the nominator was so hung up on "copyright violation" of a song title and a number. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe you're amazed because you didn't read the nom rationale? For my part, I'm amazed you'd cast a !vote (and a speedy one at that) without reading my explanation. The precedent is a concern, as I mentioned, but if the usage is wrong, a precedent doesn't make it right, does it? &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note speedy keep should only be used where one feels that the nominating editor has acted in bad faith or it is not controversial. Where there is a scope for discussion (i.e. ambiguity or copyright issues) one should vote either keep or delete. --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  19:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I called it a speedy keep at first because I thought it was a pointy nomination. I still think it's pointy, but I've withdrawn the speedy part. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My point is that my concern that copying a list from another site into a WP article violates WP:COPYVIO, if that's what you mean. I don't see how that's bad faith. I'm supposed to have a reason. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete and all articles of similar construction. Reproducing copyrighted lists without providing any critical commentary isn't fair use.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete this and all similar articles. The copyright violation is not necessarily the name and number of charting songs, rather it is the compilation of such material into a list. When the information is already available in a near identical format from the Swiss Charts at Hung Medien then our recreation of that material is almost certainly a copyright violation. --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  19:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Then what about, say, the Billboard Hot 100 pages that are just like this? Billboard's site doesn't have a de facto directory of each song that hit #1 in each year, just each individual chart one by one. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's why I said that all lists of similar construction should be deleted. I would certainly include the Billboard lists in that category.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And although I didn't bother formally nominating all 44 of the Swiss articles, all of the French, all of the Australian, Billboard, etc., articles, I implicitly include those as well. I'm rather waiting to see what input folks make on this one (which was so obvious a case to me). &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Question to the nominator regarding copyright: is the text from this commercial website being copied, or is it just the fact that a certain song reached a certain chart position that's being re-stated in the article? 28bytes (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think John will mind me answering this one: it's not the literal text. However, there's a pretty major gray area here: when the copyrighted information consists of a list of facts, how much can you confound the matter by rearranging it? If the copyrighted list says "song x by group y was number one on date z", is "on date z, song x by group y was number one" a restatement of a fact? Or is it just a rearrangement of text to attempt to avoid copyright issues? With articles that are explaining things, there's still a gray area, but most of us are pretty comfortable with saying that "Amazingly enough, he said the Pope was green!" is indeed a copyright violation of "He said the Pope was green, amazingly enough!" With simple lists of items, that gray area gets a lot bigger, because there are only so many ways to say the same simple fact.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess that brings up the question... can you copyright a list of that nature? I was under the impression that you can't, since it's a simple recitation of known facts without any creative component. There's probably a definitive WP policy on this one way or another, I'll go look for it. 28bytes (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's dubious. We've had previous instructions from WMF counsel that told us to look at the creativity behind the list creation. If the list is a mechanical compilation, it isn't copyrightable. The question here is whether the methodology used to create the chart (selecting retailers, extrapolation of total sales from the sample, sorting stations into genres, sorting retailers into classes, etc.) is creative or mechanical.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't mind Kww answering at all; glad of it, in fact. I will add this reply: in the case of this article there isn't much text to copy except the fact that song x by group y hit #1 on date z. We've formatted the dates differently and split the info into table cells, but it's all the same stuff. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment and a question I was asked about the copyright question here on my talk page, here. I just wanted to note that there have been cases in the past where we consulted our then attorney. For this one, in 2008, because the formula was simple and published, the list was determined to be non-creative and the articles were retained. We consulted him again in 2009 over specifically the Billboard Hot 100 charts (see), and he again opined that these should be no issue. Worthy of note, of course, is that we have different counsel. This is a grey area. I don't know if we have a "steady" yet, but WMF staff have been willing to put me in contact with associate counsel over copyright questions in the past and have indicated that I can contact them in the future with major issues. I'd be happy to do that here, if we want to see if the counsel recommendation is the same. If so, it would be handy to know the formula being used here, first, if it can be ascertained. I like to give complete information in first contact. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you wouldn't mind contacting counsel, that would be great. I'm not comfortable !voting either keep or delete until the basic copyright status of the article is settled. As JohnFromPinckney notes above, this AfD is intended to set a precedent for similar lists of #1s (i.e. Billboard's), so if counsel could provide us with general guidance on whether chronological lists of #1s (as distinct from "Top 100 of the year" type lists) are OK, that would be very valuable. As for the Swiss chart specifically, I don't speak the language so I can't tell what formula they use to determine the #1s. 28bytes (talk) 02:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I, too, would appreciate another look by counsel. Moonriddengirl, I appreciate the links (and your continued efforts in this area), and I'm now slightly better aware of the issues, but I'm still no copyright expert. I can't make any judgment as to whether the Swiss lists are creative works (I assumed they were, but it appears to be a bit tricky). Unlike 28bytes, I do speak the language(s), but I have no idea where the formula/explanation is published. I haven't found it anywhere yet. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 11:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, will do. :) I think it's a pretty important issue, given its far-reaching implications. We don't want to delete unneccessarily or retain if we should not. I'll wait until closer to the end of the day (UTC time), though, in the hopes that somebody can figure out their formula. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I've written. This may go the way of past queries, but, either way, it'll be good to know. There are a whole lot of articles potentially involved. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Moonriddengirl. I look forward to seeing what they say. 28bytes (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See below. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Unless I'm not understanding something about the original source for this information, the Swiss music chart is not itself creating a list: it is applying a formula of some kind every week that produces a single result. Those results can then be compiled as a list, but the list just tracks the results of the formula.  The list is not itself a creative work, because the "author" of the music charts did not at the outset creatively select 52 songs to be in a list, and then arrange them creatively.  So it's not a list like Rolling Stone's year-end top 50 songs or whatever, which is creative in its selection and arrangement.  The list of number ones should instead be considered more analogous to a list of awards, which should be treated as uncopyrightable fact.  postdlf (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone who !voted delete, please read Postdlf's argument. This is what I was trying to say but not finding the words for. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Completely disagree with the logic in the above response. The Swiss charts website in question is a licensed provider/publisher of charts in Switzerland. Thus on a week-by-week basis it compiles the chart and creates the list of singles which form the top 100 (or however many singles are in the chart). For the yearly chart they've used their compound formulation techniques to generate the results and then they have published them in a list. It doesn't matter whether the Swiss charts selected the songs on the list or not... they have access to the chart data and are licensed to produce the list. Wikipedia doesn't have access to the complete chart data nor do we have access to the formula which is used to generate the list. The only thing we have access to it the actual Swisshcharts.com list. So in that sense Wikipedia's page on this matter is a direct copyvio of the information which is already produced by a licensed publisher of the information. The wikipedia page in question is simply mirroring the information. Wikipedia has put no creative effort into influencing or generating the list other than formatting its style. The actual accumulation of the data or its processing is done by Swisscharts and the Swizz charts authority. Hence it is a valid and active copyright violation. What baffles me most about the objection to the deletion of such a page is that people don't actually seem to understand what a copyvio is. Effectively copyright violations involve copy someone else work without giving due credit. At the end of the day we've accessed Swiss charts to copy the data. Have we added to it or changed it? No. Do we add 'value' (e.g. chart performance sections add analysis e.g. Rihanna's forth number one)? No. We could save ourselves a lot of time (and effort) but stopping the creation of such pages (and in-turn successboxes, but that's another debate) and focus on actually improving the articles about the songs themselves. --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  23:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you understood my comment, or maybe I'm not understanding yours. Factual information is not copyrightable in the U.S., which is the country's law that Wikipedia observes.  Neither is mere work (i.e., effort) copyrightable unless it is creatively expressed, yet your comment seems to insist the contrary.  And if you're claiming that this list of (thus far) one entry is copyrighted, then you do not understand what a copyvio is.  In fact, your comment seems to reinforce my understanding; that the Swiss charts website compiles a weekly chart of singles based on some formula.  Depending on the extent to which that formula entails some creative judgment, that weekly chart may be copyrightable in its entirety.  But that would mean the situation is exactly as I have opined: that the Swiss charts website is not itself creating a list of number one hits any more than the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences "created" a list of Best Picture winners by choosing one year after year.  Instead, the Swiss music charts rank songs every week, and which ones were in the #1 spot for an entire year becomes just a fact that is incidental to the weekly charts they create.  They have not themselves created a list of #1 songs for the entire year as a copyrightable list.  And that is really the only way a weekly music chart could work, unless they created it at the end of the year.  postdlf (talk) 04:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Lil-unique1: Just to make a little pedantic clarification, although I'm not any expert, the thing you wrote about "copying someone else's work without giving due credit" isn't necessarily a copyright violation, it's plagiarism. Not good either, but something different. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 08:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and if an act of copying is copyright infringement, then giving "due credit" for that copying doesn't cure the infringement. postdlf (talk) 13:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Even if the chart itself is subject to copyright, merely reproducing a small portion of the copyrighted list (in this case, just the number 1 entry) should not be a copyright problem. If the above contentions are correct, and the underlying list is simply a reproduction of facts (based upon airplay rates, sales, or some other definitive number), facts cannot be copyrighted. If the sources are based upon some creative interpretation of facts, we could have an issue, but repeating only a small portion of the source in question should easily justify as fair use (as long as they are cited and credited to the copyright holder). I see no reason for deletion unless someone can state that the determination of positions within the list is somehow itself subject to copyright.  Jim Miller  See me 21:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Jim Miller. Even the Swiss part of the list reflects the information in the source, but not quite the form of the source, and the source information at this point is rather trivial. Rlendog (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The "delete" opinions are mistaken. Facts and lists thereof are not subject to copyright in the US, see Feist v. Rural. No other deletion rationale has been advanced.  Sandstein   07:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The explanation byLilUnique establishes quite clearly this is a mechanical compilation, & therefore not copyright in the US. As Moonriddengirl points out, those similar lists taken to couinsel have been consider not copyright either, but a change in counsel doesnt mean the law has changed & , if anything, the manner of preparation makes this particular one at least as clearly a noncopyvio. In cases like this  where there is no other significantly different  way of plausibly expressing the material, having partially analogous wording is inescapable. What would be copyvio, isif we photgraphed their presentation,or tryied to do an exact facsimile in html.    DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep All indicators here say that the (original) list is compilation of facts, which are ineligible for copyright in the United States. As far as I see, no one else has brought up any other deletion rational. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 19:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Update Well, Associate Counsel has kindly responded, and unfortunately we have no definitive answer (which she says she is not able to provide). She notes that since Feist, courts focus on the creativity of the selection and arrangement and that the tendency has been to view data, "where all-inclusive or completely dictated by function" as not meriting protection. She points out that where selection or arrangement of data is discriminating, copyright protection may apply, noting that "Compilers who exercised significant taste and opinion in choosing, from a universe of available data, that which they deemed important to their target audience, and in arranging the selected data into a unique and distinguishable format have qualified for copyright protection of their arrangements." She concludes by saying that "unless you know the criteria involved in creating the list, it is impossible to even gauge the potential of a court finding that it warrants copyright protection. And unfortunately, even if you do know the criteria, it is very hard to predict what a court will say (especially because the courts vary in their opinions in different circuits on this matter) when there is a degree of creativity involved.  You are really only safe if the list is purely formulaic." I'll note that in previous cases, we were able to determine the formula used in preparing the rankings, fwiw, and that was presented to Mike Godwin when he was asked for his opinion. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:03, 15 January 2011 (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.