Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time magazine top 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, obvious copyright violation of. An article discussing this top 100 and its reception and importance may be possible: an article mostly existing of a reproduction of the list is definitely not fair use. Fram (talk) 12:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Time magazine top 100

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Someone has expressed concern this is a copyright violation. I think it probably qualifies as fair use, but I thought the community should have a look at it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongly Keep. There're no legitimate copyright problems here, so long as the list in its current form hasn't been ripped exactly from a Time publication. If we considered such things copyright breaches, we wouldn't be able to reference anything relating to magazines and their contents. Alloranleon (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename Time magazine top 100 movies. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 17:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, this is assuming it is not a copyvio. If it is a copyvio, then the article can be speedied. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 18:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Y'all might be interested in this: . 3 copyvio deletions. Might Time be protecting their rights to this list? Someone might want to message one of the deleting admins. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * RE above Right, good idea. Just need to find somebody with the balls to do so... Assuming you meant they may have a conflict of interest. ;) Alloranleon (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep or maybe merge somehow with Films_considered_the_greatest_ever. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, how many times do we have to go through this? This is, without question, a copyvio, since it's a subjective list.  If this were a list of the highest-grossing movies, which can be sourced by objective numbers, then it's not a copyvio since those are facts.  This is opinion.  Therefore, it's Time's intellectual property, and cannot be here.   Corvus cornix  talk  18:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment How's this: [] for an alternative source? Alloranleon (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because somebody else violates copyright doesn't mean Wikipedia can.  Corvus cornix  talk  22:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete No prose, sources, bad link, no claims of notability (for the list). Colonel Warden (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep or Merge, if it isn't indeed a copyright violation, if it is Speedy Delete. Seems somewhat suitable to be an article, but would be nice if it could somehow be merged with Films considered the greatest ever. Hello32020 (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per copyright violation. If someone can proove that is isn't, I'll change my vote. Tavix (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, when it comes to copyvios, the onus of proof is on the nominator. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 17:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not hardly. There are standards on Wikipedia.  Intellectual property is clearly copyrighted.   Corvus cornix  talk  19:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My point is, if we tag something as copyvio, we have to determine, copyvio of what, specifically. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 20:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep How many times do we have to go through this, indeed. The list here is a very small portion of the material they published on this. --it's valid as fair use of an excerpt, and its valid as reporting. DGG (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2008 (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.