Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sporting News list of Baseball's Greatest Players


 * 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. Consensus from community discussion is roughly in favor of deletion, but also moves more towards delete, due to coypright concerns. -- Cirt (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The Sporting News list of Baseball's Greatest Players

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

This article's contents are the property of the The Sporting News, a copying of the list constitutes a copyvio.

See here, here, and soon enough here for precedent. Quadzilla99 (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The ranking was certainly notable and  (It was actually TSN's "Greatest Players of the 20th century").  Unlike the examples shown of the television shows, I see no evidence that The Sporting News copyrighted the rankings.  Generally, publications create such lists to boost sales and to be seen as an authority on a subject, so long as they receive credit.  If one can show proof that it's a copyvio, fine, but I seriously doubt it. Mandsford 03:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The link to the article is broken but this similar Sporting News list is published with essentially the same copyrights as the NFL Network's list (Per the bottom of the link: "Use of and/or registration on any portion of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.© 2010 SportingNews.com and its licensors. All rights reserved. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of SportingNews.com."). I've only run across one of these lists that wasn't so far. Can't remember what it was right now but I don't think it was Sporting News. Quadzilla99 (talk) 03:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's a direct link to the other similar football article that has a copyright at the bottom: Quadzilla99 (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually that's just one of the numbers but its copyrighted. Quadzilla99 (talk) 03:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen evidence of copyright of the list.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * According to US law the mere fact of writing something creates a copyright. There is no need to put a note of that on the work. That's just a reminder for people who are not clear on the law. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, however, that the Sporting News will probably not object to WP's reprinting their list. In fact, as was said, it gives them some free publicity. (But still legally a copyright violation unless they give us permission to repost it.)Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion they would definitely object; if you can read the results here that removes part of the incentive to go to their website or buy the book titled The Sporting News Selects Baseball's Greatest Players: A Celebration of the 20th Century's Best? Quadzilla99 (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:COPYVIO means speedy delete. --Muboshgu (talk) 06:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep.  Clearly notable, per Mandsford.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * External Linkize, or something like that. This is a great source of information. Somehow it should be linked to Wikipedia, maybe by external links in articles on baseball. What we have here is not really an article, but a reposting of the list.  Even if there was secondary commentary on the list what would still be most interesting is the data itself, not the history and process of the list. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable based on lack of third-party coverage. Probably not a copyvio, as lists are usually uncopyrightable, at least in the U.S.A. Matchups 17:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I see sufficient third party coverage, rather than a lack of it, in various google searches.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've no idea where anyone has gotten the idea that lists aren't copyvios. Maybe someone could enlighten me with a link. I've provided several links to afds where its been established that they are considered such. Besides this is the subject of a book, publishing this removes incentive to buy the book, so I would think Sporting News would clearly object (which is clearly part of the gimmick used to market the book, but this and see where we have your favorite players ranked). Quadzilla99 (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is why I feel that Wikipedia is flawed, as people not licensed to practice law in the U.S., let alone with expertise in intellectual property law, opine freely as to the application of principles that they are not sufficiently familiar with.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete sorry but these lists are usually copyrighted, we had to delete a bunch of these lists before. Secret account 18:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and fix: Whether to keep this article or not depends on the notability of the list (or of the book in which the list is contained), not on whether it's a copyvio in its current state. If the list is notable, then the article should be rewritten to describe the origins of the list, summarize some of the highlights, mention some of the sources that show its notability, and provide a link to a permitted copy of the list if available.  I think the list is notable per the sources cited by Mandsford.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So if the complete rankings section is a copyvio, why don't we just delete that now? AaronY (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Under applicable law in the U.S., it would not appear to be. The answer would lie under the holdings in Publications vs. Rural Telephone Service (499 US 340; 1991) and its progeny. BTW -- are you the same editor as the nom, but just using a different name?--Epeefleche (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Question How about just giving a link to the list as an external link in baseball and citing it as a reference in each listed player's article? I don't think we need an article on the list itself.  The fact that the Sporting News created such a list will have been already made clear to interested readers. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's a default position I expect if it does not survive this AfD.  However, if there is not a consensus that it is non-notable, it will survive this AfD and deserve an article.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2010 (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.