Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of three Michelin starred restaurants in the United Kingdom


 * 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. L Faraone  02:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

List of three Michelin starred restaurants in the United Kingdom

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Why the page should be deleted? Because it is a copy of the most essential information from MichelinTM guides for this this area. Specifically the article has two copies, one in the body and once again at the bottom, of a lists of restaurants which are been compiled from from the Michelin Guides to Great Britain & Ireland. These lists are the essence of these guides and so this constitute a Blatant Copyright Violation. I therefore ask that the page be deleted ASAP.


 * P.S. I have also nominated for deletion the related template at Template:Michelin stars in the UK
 * P.S.S adding related category Category:Michelin Guide starred restaurants in the United Kingdom since it also is a CPVIO!
 * and List of Michelin starred restaurants in Ireland — Preceding unsigned comment added by CPVIO (talk • contribs) 09:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

CPVIO (talk) 05:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. The Guardian printed the full 2012 list, down to one-star establishments, and MSN the three-star restaurants for 2013. The restaurants so honored would undoubtedly publicize their accomplishment, so the info must be available through other sources. Is this really a copyright violation? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment:
 * Are you serious ? What restaurant would advertise a list of all its competitors ?
 * I assume (in good faith) that all other sources are either licensed by or advertising by Michelin. Wikipedia does not license content or allow advertising so until the Guides are put into the public domain this material is a CPVIO.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CPVIO (talk • contribs) 14:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. They wouldn't publish their competitors scores. They'd do it individually. So they have to be sourced individually. Which gets around the Sweat of the Brow argument you've used below! Miyagawa (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep: It isn't a copyright violation unless everything on Wikipedia is a copyright violation. The complete history of the Michelin stars in the UK are listed on the Michelin website England here. The actual guide doesn't just show the stars which are reported in the media when they occur as shown by the independent referencing, but shows an actual review (not included in this article, nor intended to be) and a range of icons describing the restaurant (not in this article nor intended to be). Furthermore, there has been no physical copy of the Michelin Guide which shows the all time three-star list. This list effectively says that the restaurant is at a level of achievement which is in the public domain, but does not show the actual reason for it or the detail which is contained in the individual guides. Miyagawa (talk) 09:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Further point - the live information can also be searched for through the via Michelin website for free. Miyagawa (talk) 09:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment:
 * The Ranking like the review etc are part of the guides and a protected by copyright.
 * A compilation is a derivative work of their IP and is still covered by the same laws of copyright.
 * This "Copy & Paste" argument is against WP:CPVIO policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CPVIO (talk • contribs) 14:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as a brand new user that you haven't got a clue what you are talking about. Unless of course you're a well known user and created a new account under a different name because for some reason you don't want your activities here linked to your main account. Sorry, I'm naturally suspicious when someone creates a user account and then on the same day they known how to insert a bullet point let alone request the deletion of an article. Based on the assumptions you make, every single list article on the entire English Wikipedia which is sourced is therefore a copyright problem. Furthermore any-time anyone has given a review and it has been quoted on Wikipedia would also be a copyright violation. And every time a listing of Michelin Guide score is mentioned by anyone online is also a copyright violation. They put out press releases listing these for re-use by print media. Plus, your Sweat of the Brow argument holds no water. I've compiled information here that isn't collected on the historical Michelin Guide listing. I'm sorry, but it is really hard to abide by WP:DONTBITE when it seems like WP:NEEDSMOARDRAMA is being breached. Miyagawa (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've scored out some unfair comments I added previously now a more level head is prevalent. Miyagawa (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - Facts are not copyrightable. Diego (talk) 11:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Compilation are copyrighted when they contain added value per Sweat of the brow. A list of rankings produced at great expense, unlike a list of the restaurants' phone numbers constitutes a compilation and is the product of the publisher's work and thus their intellectual property and protected by Copyright.

*Speedy Keep: No copyright vio. under American law, and no valid reason for deletion proposed: EDIT: In light of subsequent comments, especially that of Moonriddengirl, I'm not so sure that this is a clear cut situation anymore. --Mike Agricola (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's servers are physically located in the United States, so US IP (intellectual property) law applies to Wikipedia's content. The US has explicitly rejected Sweat_of_the_brow and the database right:  "Uncreative collections of facts are outside of Congressional authority under the Copyright Clause (Article I, § 8, cl. 8) of the United States Constitution."  (For that matter, if WP were bound to follow the law of other countries, effectively it would have to apply the most restrictive national IP laws which exist anywhere in the world, including that of Mexico, where the copyright term on published works is the life of the author + 99 years!!)
 * The article under review lists only eight restaurants. It's very likely that even under UK/EU law, this would be seen as a De minimis copying - i.e. fair use.  It's one thing to replicate a very large database such as a telephone directory; it's quite another to repeat a small collection of facts. --Mike Agricola (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment This raises very fundamental issues which go to the heart of Wikipedia - I do not think that this can be decided on !votes, and at the very least I would want to see evidence that the copyright holder of the Michelin Guides had sought to restrict use of the material in this way (as pointed out, there is evidence to the contrary) and that there was expert legal advice that it is in breach of copyright for the purposes of the relevant law. Sweat of the brow has been referred to above - my reading of the summary there of the match listing judgement of the European Court is that it went against copyright enforcement in instances such as this in the EU. --AJHingston (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Wikipedia:Copyright in lists and past precedent such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Core Collection albums in The Penguin Guide to Jazz. AllyD (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC) See also the previous deletion decision at Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_March_22 AllyD (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't the same issue. The Penguin one seems to have been a copy violation from a single work. I didn't see the two star article before it was deleted so I can't comment on that. The restaurants in this article were not three star restaurants in the same version of the guide. They have never been published together as a single list, apart from on the Michelin website which shows different information to that which is presented here. Miyagawa (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Wait a goddamn second What is this: []. It seems that CPVIO is attempted to remove all Michelin Star related information from Wikipedia. Would he/she care to comment why this was added their user page and then remove it? This is all very unusual. Miyagawa (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Saw red for a second then and didn't notice that CPVIO had moved the list into his sandbox here User:CPVIO/sandbox. It still seems like an unusual campaign for a new editor to embark upon on his first day of Wikipedia editing. Who are you really? Miyagawa (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep Seems like a genuine original work derived from this Michelin website The Banner talk 19:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Genuine derivatives are covered by the original copyright. CPVIO (talk) 11:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - regarding the coprightablility of such a list, in what way are the following different? List of Nobel laureates, Michigan Women's Hall of Fame, List of covers of Time magazine (and all sub-lists) Chris857 (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Further comment Reference by AllyD to the precedents and the advice on which it was based is very helpful, but this is not a simple situation. The rating in the Michelin Guide is the de facto standard by which restaurants are judged, certainly in Britain. The star awards each year are trumpeted by the publishers in press announcements for which they seek as much attention as possible. There are very good commercial reasons why they should. So we are in the paradoxical position of discussing removal of material which is undoubtedly notable on the grounds of protecting a copyright owner who wants the information published. If there is doubt of that I suggest first asking the publisher whether they object. It is comparable to the situation with film awards - the Motion Picture Academy holds copyright on the Academy Awards, but it would be very odd if that meant that WP did not list nomination and award lists. --AJHingston (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Without doubt, I think it should be possible to reference every single year for every single restaurant. But you have to go through several newspapers and magazines and create a rather deadly long list of references... The Banner talk 22:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Referencing wont do any good since the list itself is protected IP. Referencing is allowed under fair use but recreating the list from 1000 different sources is the same trespass as simply copying it. CPVIO (talk) 11:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Because I don't like the idea of a newcomer having the potential to destroy a major share of my work on Wikipedia, I have contacted Michelin directly to get an answer from them. The Banner talk 23:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. As I understand Wikipedia:Copyright in lists, the key factor is whether subjective critical judgment went into compiling the list, or not.  Certainly critical judgment went into the assignment of stars in the Michelin Guide series.  But the ranking itself, not the creation of a list, is the critical judgment being made.  Once an issue in the series of Michelin Guides is printed, the information in it is of record, and it is a trivial task not requiring critical judgment to compile the list of restaurants awarded any number of stars. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I was asked to share my thoughts here on the basis of my experience in copyright work. Clearly, the selection is subjective. The star rating of a restaurant is not an innate value on which everyone would agree, but something that requires human opinion. It is a fact that Michelin has bestowed these stars, certainly, but it's also a fact that Rolling Stone named 500 greatest songs of all time, too, and we still can't list them beyond the allowances of fair use. Excerpting them is tricky, because they are not all of equal value - as our attorney pointed out, the top 5 of a list is what people are most interested in. That seems applicable here as well. If somebody put a gun to my head (which, rather not) and said, "Maggie, you have to make this choice," I'd have to fall on the side of conservative here. This seems like a derivative excerpt of creative content. It is not being used transformatively - that is, we aren't offering a critique of their selection or anything that adds to the public discourse. The sole reason for publication that I can see is to supersede the use of the original work - so people who want to know which restaurants in the area Michelin thinks are best can easily find them here without having to go there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In light of your comment, I canceled my earlier "speedy keep". I still think the situation *probably* could be regarded as fair use because of the small size of the list (eight entries), but my experience with these issues is admittedly very limited.  Per Copyright in lists and your comment, I can agree that it's preferable to act conservatively on the important matter of respecting a publisher's copyright.  A few posts above, The Banner made a statement about contacting "Michelin directly to get an answer from them".  If Michelin gives permission in the next few days in a manner that conforms with WP:PERMISSION, then it would appropriate to reinstate my "keep" vote.  But if Michelin declines permission, then it would seem best to err on the side of caution.  Anyways, thanks for taking the time to provide your copyright analysis. --Mike Agricola (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * look again at my response - there are hundreds more items in the Ireland List added today - is that really fair use ? CPVIO (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What list are you talking about? The Banner talk</i> 00:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. To the extent we're talking about the impact this compilation has on the market for the Michelin guides.... my entirely unresearched and subjective opinion is that people who plan on spending that kind of money to eat out probably will want to do more research than looking up a list on Wikipedia.  If I'm going to blow that kind of dough, I want to know what Michelin recommends.  And, for that matter, most Michelin starred restaurants are quite likely notable businesses, almost by virtue of that fact alone: certainly any current or former three-star restaurant is, even by my stingy interpretation. A Michelin Guide review is certainly a quite reliable source for writing an article about a notable business: so we even get to reproduce information -- we certainly can name house specialties and famous dishes -- about specific restaurants from the guide itself. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, my understanding is that it is more than that. The star awards function as the main marketing tool of the guides. Publishing the lists in press releases and encouraging other media to print them promotes the brand - originally the tyres and now the guides themselves. Issuing a press release or putting in a paid advertisement saying that the guide had been published and people would have to buy a copy to find out who had the most stars would not work, and we would not be having this discussion. By encouraging us all to see the Michelin classification as the most respected and trustworthy, they believe that we are more likely to select Michelin when faced with a range of competing travel and restaurant guides - anyone looking at one will see that it contains vastly more information than we are talking about here.  --AJHingston (talk) 09:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm by no means an expert in copyright issues, but I would like to respond anyways. Copyright intrinsically attaches to creative works, including (arguably) lists that are a product of creative, subjective, judgment: "If a source is based on 'value judgments', it may be protected by copyright, even if it looks very similar to fact. And even if the source is fact, copyright may still protect its selection and arrangement if these are creative." (WP:Copyright in lists).  If copyright does apply to the lists under review, then either it is a WP:COPYVIO, or fair use.  "Fair use" applies when the amount of copying is de minimis in relation to the work copied (which may or may not apply here - I'm no expert).  However, the argument that it helps Michelin so they won't mind doesn't make the use non-infringing - it simply is an argument that it's unlikely that Michelin will enforce their copyright.  So WP:COPYVIO still applies.  (As an analogy, someone who uploads an infomercial copied from television to YouTube will likely "get away" with it because the video creates additional exposure which helps sell the product being marketed - but that doesn't make the YouTube video non-infringing according to the letter of the law unless the rights holder gives permission).  If Michelin gives WP:PERMISSION, then that should resolve the matter. --Mike Agricola (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Although I have no answer yet of Michelin UK, I like to point at the situation about the Netherlands: List of Michelin starred restaurants in the Netherlands. This list is largely based on articles in a hospitality magazine (and a few Guides to back up the listings in the magazine). Would it not be likely the Michelin would sue the magazine after publishing the listings when they were copyrighted? For example: this one (1957-1964), this one (2006-2011) or this one (2013). <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 23:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Mike Agricola's point about material still being copyright even if the use is permissible (and fair use does not extinguish copyright in the source) is at the heart of the difficulty here, and why I believe the issues are far reaching. My remark about award lists above was not an idle one. A policy that says if the source is copyright it must come out is not something WP can easily accept. It is the violation aspect of the policy that we need to concentrate on. That still raises plenty of problems in itself of course, since it comes to a question of what is enforceable in the Californian courts which already puts WP at odds with the law in the place of the place of domicile of many copyright holders. In the ordinary sense of the term, though, it is difficult to see that it can be a violation if the holder has actually encouraged reproduction as has happened here. [I had better add the disclaimer that I am not a lawyer and that any statement, express or implied, regarding the law.....] --AJHingston (talk) 10:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if we can conclude that the "holder has actually encouraged reproduction." For example, it is possible that the magazine obtained special permission from Michelin to republish the listings mentioned above.  It doesn't necessarily follow from the existence of some reproductions that the copyright holder actively encourages or permits all reproductions.  It seems to me that direct permission from the copyright holder itself should be required to clarify that reproduction is permitted beyond the allowances of fair use.  Again though, I'm not a lawyer or any sort of expert - which brings me to one final thought on a general note:  In the future, the issue of copyright in list articles is probably better handled over at WP:CP.  The administrators over there who review the articles brought to their attention are have considerable experience in assessing copyright issues. --Mike Agricola (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am basing my assertion on the evidence of things like the Michelin 2013 PDF listing on the Michelin servers as well as all over the internet, plus associated press releases. That, and established usage. I agree that this is a legal issue rather than a conventional AFD one, which is why I declined to !vote, but if they followed a prudential line in relation to anything that relies on material that is or might be subject to copyright a lot of WP would have to be taken down. Admittedly, that is the approach taken in Wiki Commons, but it is so far reaching in its implications that it will be the subject of widespread public discussion anyway. --AJHingston (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Since it is a legal issue, it is clear that these lists must be deleted. The Michelin websites' copyright notice states unequivocally that they do not allow re-licensing of their material via Wikipedia's free license or any other license, specifically these types of documents - so you are clearly in the wrong here. Michelin only allows private use of such materials. As per implications each case is different a quick consideration of the different list you mentioned raised different issues from the ones detailed here so per the AfD's norms they require separate nomination and discussions. 03:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This greatly oversimplifies both the legal position and WP policy, which has been explained concerns copyright violation. The published summary (which as I have pointed out is on Michelin's own website as well as accompanying their press releases publicising the guides) contains no such restriction on use and as explained there are good reasons why they encourage pubicity for it. Nobody is denying that the material is copyright - indeed the history of copyright in the UK, which differs from that in the US, has always assumed copyright in original works regardless of whether it is actually asserted. It is permissible use that is the issue. --AJHingston (talk) 11:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep This is something that gets ample coverage in magazines and travel guides. Shouldn't it be called List of Michelin three starred restaurants in the United Kingdom instead though?   D r e a m Focus  15:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Err notability has not been disputed - how is coverage relevant to the Copyright issues ? CPVIO (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As others have already explained, its not a copyright violation. We have ample lists like this already, such as the list articles in Category:The New York Times Best Seller list, Forbes list of billionaires, and many others.  People who buy a restaurant guide will still buy it, not just to see the star ratings, but to read about them also.   D r e a m Focus  18:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree the copyright is the central issues - any attempt to generalize this request to other situation goes against the system used at AFD. The rules state that each nomination should be judged on it own merit. This is a very narrow and specific request and not an attempt to rewrite the policy on list copyright. The only serious dissenting voice is pleading confusion per uncertainty of other lists which have not been discussed here and have little to in common with this case in which Copy & Paste has been demonstrated and the copyright is from a published book! CPVIO (talk) 03:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Its the same exact thing you see all over Wikipedia, and discussions about it have been had in the past at times over the years. It does not violate any copyright laws.  Also, your nomination for deletion of Category:Michelin Guide starred restaurants in the United Kingdom is just too ridiculous to take serious.    D r e a m Focus  10:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

A final comment:
 * So far the legal opinions have represented a US centric point of view. But Wikipedia belongs to the world.
 * The legal hazards faced by WMF due to US based interpretation of CPVIO's are significant but not the only ones that are of import! The WMF's legal team's activity is a matter of public record and and in their statements the WMF's legal counsel has indicate that this team acts first and foremost to protect their employers, the members of the board from lawsuits. To this end they have insulated them by dissociating them from editor's offenses. In the event of a lawsuit they have a reasonable budget which also provides insurance against lawsuits.
 * The WMF does not have a record in protecting non-Board Members who break laws outside the US or in it.
 * The real legal hazard of this type of CPVIO is that Michelin may file suit against Wikipedians like User:The Banner or User:Miyagawa who have indicated here per snow keep votes that left to their own devices would resume their editing with disregard to copyright.
 * If this was done only at their own risks it would not be an issue. But Wikipedia is a collaborative venture 'these action create a legal hazard to other members of the community - an unacceptable one.
 * A Multinational Company like Michelin has lawyers in all the countries the work and they can file suit at a time and venue of greatest opportunity suit against any editor or admin involved with editing or care taking of these articles. Precedents in France Italy and Germany indicate that the suits may also include local chapter members too. And if they find a single editor who editing under a real name and has done as little as reverted a vandal who blanked the page they are certain to win. In such a case the law Judge would be European and original ownership, Ownership of derived work, Sweat of the brow, Copy and paste from other sites, Recreating the list based on their party sources, Trademark infringement would all be relevant arguments.
 * The monetary penalty for a single CPVIO offense is debilitating for the typical Wikipedian in most jurisdictions.
 * Anonymity is no defense - the policy against outing Wikipedia do not bind the law courts of any county. A multinational like Michelin could get a decision in France and enforce the discovery of evidence in the US and file for damages in Europe.
 * Regular editors are not insured except by the community taking a firm hand with copyright violation and by ousting unrepentant copyright violators from its midst regardless of their rank and experience.
 * I therefore request that the closer make a clear decision which could be used to quickly remove further copyright violation of these and other lists of Michelin stared restaurant from Wikipedia ASAP per the original nomination!
 * If people need clarification on other lists these are not relevant here and can be discussed on the appropriate talk/policy pages or in the copyright violation forum. CPVIO (talk) 03:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It would have been nice when you did this under your own name, instead of creating a sockpuppet for it. And by now, I think you are making legal threats against Wikipedia. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 04:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not made any legal threats since the only one who can take legal action is the copyright owner Michelin.
 * I'm sad to see you are such a bad sport. Anyone can see that this is a matter of law and not of stacking a votes.
 * Your talk page shows that you take great pleasure from bossing other editors you disagree with, this is not something I will tolerate. You can be sure to get my next response at the Admin's notice board unless you strike out any accusations you cannot prove. CPVIO (talk) 08:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The one who is a bad sport, is you. You created an obvious sockpuppet to stir up the soup. I have used my personal mail-address to request a comment on "my own" articles and the copyvio issues that exist according to you. Unless their legal department is still looking at it, I assume that their silence is in fact the answer "nonsense". But the real reply is still pending. Besides that, you have put a malformed AfD on "Category:Michelin Guide starred restaurants in the United Kingdom". When you had a genuine concern about copyvio, you would have seen that that category has nothing to do with copyvio as it is a collection of articles of restaurants with at least one Michelin star instead of a creative or derivative work. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 10:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You've had a week to reveal your real account. I've opened a case here Sockpuppet investigations/CPVIO. Miyagawa (talk) 09:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Request close and keep: Based on this being entirely the wrong forum for this discussion. Ironically it was because I typed WP:CPVIO that I discovered Copyright problems which deals specifically with these types of matter and seems to have numerous experts on the subject who have used their own usernames for years. I suggest we move the discussion there. Miyagawa (talk) 09:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In response to the bullet list of nonsense, Wikipedia is hosted in America, so follows American laws. Feel free to email the company and point to the articles and category you believe violates their copyrights, and see if they really have an issue with it.  This is not cutting into their sales, for reasons I already mentioned.   D r e a m Focus  10:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I can also support this. Per WP:Copyright in lists and Moonriddengirl's comment, I do think that sufficient concern exists that a copyright expert should take a close look at the article.  But this is a legal matter which is properly a matter for WP:CP, not an AfD.  A procedural close/keep would be warranted. --Mike Agricola (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree - Moonriddengirl's comments makes it clear that based on WP:Copyright in lists she sides with the conservatives view which is when in doubt of a copyright infringement remove the material ASAP. There are plenty of precedents at AdF for this. While I don't want to put a gun to anyone's head - now that it has been determined that these lists are derivative works we can'y pretend that these lists are OK to host on Wikipedia under a CC by SA license, not when when Michelin states unequivocally that they don't allow re-licensing. Sure it is convenient for some people to host copies of these lists here? - but until we change the policy to use a "95% Possible Copyright Infringement - Edit at your own risk" Banner these lists needs to go. Consider [] and [] which demonstrate the Wikipedian are the any involved Wikipedian is at risk from this type of material. However if someone get the WMF legal counsel gives an opinion that this is ok and that they take legal responsibility for such an infringement then the lists may be restored via deletion review. CPVIO (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2013 (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.