Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of Time 100


 * 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 delete the 2006 and 2007 lists; keep the other one. Mango juice talk 15:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Lists of Time 100

 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

These are three articles that simply list TIME ' s top 100 influential people from 1999, 2006, and 2007. They should be deleted because they are: CHANGING: Corvus cornix (below) is right -- I can't withdraw the first nomination. But I'm changing my recommendation (as nominator) to delete the last two and keep the first, but delete the copyrighted list within it. Kane5187 19:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not encyclopedic. They are just the lists, whereas they should be articles about the lists. There is no interpretive content, no analysis, no outside opinions on which rankings were reasonable and which were not, no assessment of the list's influence. In short, no encyclopedic content.
 * Not notable. Each year's list should not receive its own article. There is no evidence that the list was seen as important or even reported upon by anyone other than TIME.
 * Redundant. Time 100 documents the list as an annual phenomenon, and actually does report on encyclopedic topics related to it. The individual lists are not necessary.
 * Possibly a copyright violation. It's a pretty unclear area, but this is not a factual list (like, say, List of people from Ohio); it's the exact reproduction of someone else ' s creative/interpretive work, namely, TIME ' s assessment of who is influential and who is not. Kane5187 15:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Delete all as copyvios of Time's intellectual property.  Corvus cornix 22:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not a copyright violation unless the publisher designates it as copyrighted material. Magazines publish these types of things in the very hope that they will get repeated, draw attention, and possibly sell some subscriptions.  People magazine's "sexiest people" lists are a perfect example.  You'll see, on occasion, a copyright on a newspaper's investigative report, but most material is designed to be repeated, so long as credit is given for where it came from.  I'm not sure that it's fair to lump TIME's list of "most influential people of the 20th Century" with the TIME 100 for 2007, so I'd vote to Keep the first article, and to Delete the second and third article.  Mandsford 00:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not copyvio It has been thoroughly established that at least in the US reporting on this material is not a copyright violation. DGG (talk) 07:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Established by whom? And where? I was under the impression that anything published by anybody is automatically protected by copyright. Kane5187 14:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It most definitely is a copyvio. This is not a neutral, stats-type of list, this is the opinion of TIME's editorial staff.  There have been tons of such articles deleted as copyvios in the past.  We can have articles about the list, but we cannot have articles which reproduce the list.  Corvus cornix 18:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * strong keep Time magazine has been called the most famous magazine in the world, and so the listing of the 100 most influential people of the 20th century by historians in such a prestigous publcation is extremely notable, encyclopedic, and of great general interest, and educational value. Of all the gazillions of lists on wikipedia, this is the last one that should be deleted. Slackergeneration 12:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're making a logical leap here that TIME is notable, so something TIME does must be notable. Regarding the list being "prestigious," "notable," "encyclopedic," and "of great general interest," I'd be happy to withdraw the nomination if you can show me reliable sources that confirm these assertions. Kane5187 14:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * speedy keep You could make an argument for deleting Time's list of the 100 most influential people of 2007, but deleting their list of the 100 most influential people of the entire 20th century is absurd.  And the list is extremely notable. Indeed both Al Gore and George W. Bush publicly commented on who Time's person of the century should be Iseebias 13:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (1) Do you have a citation that they made such statements? (2) Would that amount to more than trivial coverage? I'm not asking for much. If this list is notable, then people must have substantially reported on it in reliable sources unaffiliated with TIME. Show me them and I'll withdraw the nomination, at least for the Century one.
 * It's now been proven below that the list got substantial reporting by sources like CNN, the Associated Press, American Scientist, and New York Daily News, and was even blasted by figures as prominent as Rudy Giuliani. And yes, it's also true that the list was important enough that both Al Gore and George W. Bush submitted their nominations for person of the century to Time magazine Slackergeneration 15:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Important comment I just added a cited criticism section of criticisms relating specifically to the 20th century list in order to make the list more than just a list of names. In light of this improvement, I think the nomination should be reconsidered. Slackergeneration 13:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The source you cited is a transcript of questions posed to TIME from online viewers, and published by TIME itself. Surely if this list is notable, someone other than TIME has published criticism of it in a reliable source. Kane5187 14:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any question this list is extremely notable. It was one of the most popular installments in the history of the world's most respected publication.  But if you need evidence that sources other than Time reported on this list, then here's a sample :[. If you would like to see criticism that was published in sources other than Time, I will add that to the article too.  The criticism by Rudy Giuliani (a presidential contender) is especially notable [[User:Slackergeneration|Slackergeneration]] 15:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That's exactly what I wanted to see -- integrate those in the article. While I agree (now) that the list merits inclusion, you can't just assume that everyone recognizes the subject as notable a priori. Every article's notability should be backed up by reliable, third-party sources. I'll withdraw my nomination of the century article, although I'm still a bit leery about the copyright issues involved in reproducing the list. Kane5187 15:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I added the Lucky Luciano controversy to the article, including Rudy Giuliani's remarks. Slackergeneration 15:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: I have removed the withdrawal of Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century because, just like all of the other lists, this is a copyvio. And the nominator cannot withdraw a nomination with delete !votes just because they're the nominator. Corvus cornix 18:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete' both the 2006 and 2007 Time 100 List as copyvio, keep the other one, but remove the list withen, those kind of lists are copyrighted, the only once that are kept is the AFI onces, in which they released to the Public Domain This is a Secret account 19:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * copyvio question Now, I may well be totally confused, but it was my understanding of US copyright that while the list itself as published in the magazine is copyright, the information that someone is on it is information, not expression and is not subject to copyright. If the detailed text in the WP article as well as the names was reproduced from the magazine, yes, that would be a copyvio. If the names were found on the list, and the info. from WP, etc., used to identify them, it's not. I thought that we can publish about any list we please, and say who is on it--that is not the same as publishing the list. As this is apparently objected to here, I've listed this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems.DGG (talk) 02:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If I understand you correctly, I think I agree with you -- commentary on the list, which naturally includes revealing some of the people on it, would not be a violation. However, reproduction of only the list would be a violation. These three articles do only the latter; they just reproduce it, without any commentary on it. Kane5187 —Preceding comment was added at 04:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean these two articles do only the latter, since the 20th century article now includes plenty of commentary. Anyway it would be very easy to delete the complete list of names section from the 20th century article and then remove it from the nomiation on the grounds that it's no longer an alleged copy-vivo.  For an example on how this issue has been solved in the past, check out the 100-an article about a book which attempts to rank the 100 most influential people of all time.  For copy-vivo concerns, they decided to list only the top 15. Slackergeneration 11:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty of removing the complete list of names from the 20th century list, and now the article only shows the select few from the list who Time singled out for additional recognition (i.e. Einstein who was named person of the century). So the alleged copy-vivo issue has been solved for the 20th century article Slackergeneration 11:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, just to let you all know, all the Oricon charts have been deleted earlier this year due copyvio: 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 Oricon Top 100 Singles, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 Oricon Top 20 Albums 2005. The best rationale was "selection and order of list is a copyrightable creative work". -- ReyBrujo 03:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Based on the changes that were made, I withdraw my objections to Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century. Corvus cornix 17:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - can someone please add a link to TIME's list of the 20th C top 100? Since the list has been removed, people now have nowhere to go to see the full list. Carcharoth (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Carcharoth (talk) 14:40, 19 November 2007 (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.