Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 100 Greatest Albums of the 80's


 * 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-09 10:28Z 

The 100 Greatest Albums of the 80's

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

It's a violation of Rolling Stones' copyright and the author requested it on the article's talk page. MZMcBride 03:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is probably a violation of copyright, but to clarify, the author did not request a delete, he stated that he would not object to a deletion - there is a difference! --Nevhood 03:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 03:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - if the Rolling Stone's opinion was worth shit, this might be considered along the lines of TIME's Man of the Year or Nobel Prize winners (and hence, fair game for an Encyclopedia), but I can't really see this as encyclopedic. --Action Jackson IV 03:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - The other difference between the two is that a list of TIME Men of the Year is essentially a list of people articles were written about. This list is a direct copy of the content of a single article.--Djrobgordon 04:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep There is absolutely no violation whatever, in any way shape or form of any copyright law at all in this list. You cannot copyright information, and that's all that this list is: information about what Rolling Stone said the greatest albums of the 80s are. Anyone can report what the list is. Only original writing in Rolling Stone is copyrightable, and there's a big difference. I think it's worth having a number of "best" lists when they come from some authority on the subject. It helps people decide what they might want to listen to, buy, pay attention to or read about. The more the better, and that should include this one. Noroton 08:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Certainly in the UK, information can be copyrightable - for instance unofficial football websites are not allowed to show lists of forthcoming fixtures (Link). I have no idea what the situation in the US is.  Eliminator JR   Talk  13:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Response: I find that amazing, but I'm unfamiliar with UK law. At least the main servers and HQ for Wikipedia are in Florida, so I assume US law applies. I think this is a good description of the difference in copyrighting expressions and ideas, at least in US law, taken from Merger doctrine:
 * In United States copyright law, the merger doctrine holds that if an idea and the way to express it are so intricately tied that the ways of expression have little possible variation, there will not be copyright infringement, lest the copyright prevent others from expressing the same idea. The overall principle is that of the idea-expression divide, which is that one can hold a copyright in an expression, but not in an idea. Noroton 18:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Action Jackson IV StuartDouglas 13:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Pet Shop Boys dont even get a mention in the top 100 - therefore in my opinion its not a notworthly article! Seriously though, this is not encyclopedia stuff its fansite material. --PrincessBrat 15:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Clear copyright vio. Compilations of information are copyright under US law. See here. This is illegal. Nssdfdsfds 16:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Take another look at the third paragraph from the bottom on the page you link to: "A copyrightable compilation enjoys only limited protection. The copyright only covers the 'author's original contribution -- not the facts or information conveyed.'" Noroton 18:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - non-notable and not objective. HagenUK 17:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia NPOV policy states that we can report on the opinions of others, which is what this article does. No list of awards would be objective either, by definition, on the part of the source, but perfectly objective from our perspective of reporting on it. Noroton 18:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Copyright violation. - Denny 18:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The precedent for a list like this is in the Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time article. Commentary about a list is acceptable, however, listing the entire list is a violation of copyright without prior permission. --MZMcBride 23:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and I think that was wrong too, but rather than try to be a lawyer, I've asked a question about this issue here: Wikipedia talk:Copyrights Noroton 01:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as a copyvio. It is my understanding that lists (like anything else) have copyright protection as long as there is any creativity involved in compiling or arranging them.  So while a simple, chronological list of the Kings of England or "The Top Selling Records of All Time" may not be protected, a list of "My Favorite Kings of England" or "The 100 Greatest Albums of the 80's [in Our Opinion]" is certainly protected.  Also, if it's a close call whether an article is a copyvio, I think we need to err on the side of deleting it.  (Not that I think it's close here at all.)  Besides all of that, London Calling came out in 1979 (even though it hit the US in 1980), so the whole list is suspect IMHO. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as copyvio. Presumably both the selection of which albums to include and the ordering of albums on the list represent the opinions of the editors of Rolling Stone, so this list is fully copyrightable. --Carnildo 02:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions.   -- Butseriouslyfolks 03:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete since this list appears to be a direct copy of a part of the Rolling Stones article, I believe it indeed falls under copyright law. -- lucasbfr talk 13:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Since this discussion seems to be headed for a consensus of deletion as a copyvio, perhaps it should be speedied? --Butseriouslyfolks 01:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Hearing no objection, I just tagged the article for speedy deletion as a copyvio. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Per US law, the "expertise" which is used to compile the list constitutes creative input. That is what makes a list copyrightable. If it were a list of top SELLING albums, that is just data. When they are putting together judgements, that makes it creative content. Slavlin 05:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Delete. I'm not so sure this is a copyvio (although I have thought so in the past), but I see no reason that this list has any particular importance.  There's an unending number of lists like this, and we clearly shouldn't be reprinting them all (even just the list).  Mango juice' talk 16:45, 7 March 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.