Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triple J Hottest 100, 2009


 * 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. WP:SNOW close, with this many "Keep" votes, this is not going to result in any other outcome. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Triple J Hottest 100, 2009

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A compilation of subjective votes, not a list of objective statistics, it is therefore a copyright violation by virtue of being the intellectual property of the compiler. It has been claimed that this is not a copyright violation since it's being written on this page by people listening to the radio over the air, and not by copying it from a Triple J official source, but the compilation itself is copyrighted. It's also claimed that this is the station's playlist, and therefore it is not copyrighted, but that is not true. It's also claimed that although this page says ''You may save a local copy or send it to your printer for your own personal use or in order to inform authorised and potential users about the ABC materials. However, you may not make any charge for such use and any commercial exploitation is expressly prohibited. You must include the copyright notice in any copy that you make. You may not modify the information found in ABC materials without the express permission of the ABC.'', since Wikipedia does not intend to use it for commercial exploitation, it's okay to put here, but that's not compatible with Wikipedia's licenses, and would make it impossible for this page to be copied by commercial forks, which is a violation of Wikipedia copyright terms. When I pointed that out on the article's Talk page, I was told, Oh my goodness this article is staying, just get over it, it's a list of songs, get over yourself . Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Also included in this AfD are:
 * Triple J Hottest 100, 1989
 * Triple J Hottest 100, 1990
 * Triple J Hottest 100, 1991

---> There is no 1992


 * Triple J Hottest 100, 1993
 * Triple J Hottest 100, 1994
 * Triple J Hottest 100, 1995
 * Triple J Hottest 100, 1996
 * Triple J Hottest 100, 1997 (Previous discussion at Articles for deletion/Triple J Hottest 100, 1997 - keep resolution seems to be a violation of Wikipedia copyright policy)
 * Triple J Hottest 100, 1998
 * Triple J Hottest 100, 1999
 * Triple J Hottest 100, 2000
 * Triple J Hottest 100, 2001
 * Triple J Hottest 100, 2002
 * Triple J Hottest 100, 2003
 * Triple J Hottest 100, 2004
 * Triple J Hottest 100, 2005
 * Triple J Hottest 100, 2006
 * Triple J Hottest 100, 2007
 * Triple J Hottest 100, 2008

It does not include Triple J Hottest 100, which is the correct way to report these lists. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  —Thryduulf (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  —Thryduulf (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  —Thryduulf (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Thryduulf (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep It is understandable that a list compiled by an individual or group of 'experts' should be subject to copyright, but the fact remains that this list is voted on by the public and the results are publicly available over a range of broadcast mediums. Due to it being a list compiled from public votes, the list itself should not be subject to copyright.Jimboss123 (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep TripleJ Hottest 100 lists have a significant historic value and are broadcast over public radio waves. The list is reproduced by numerous news organisations in Australia and around the worlds. Sesh (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Agreed with the reason above. Geshpenst (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: Keep is not a valid option under Wikipedia copyright policy unless all of these redirect to Triple J Hottest 100. Should an admin decide that they want to keep this, I will immediately list it at WP:DRV. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please note that this list is produced by a fully publicaly funded government broadcaster (the ABC). It is forbidden for this broadcaster to advertise and it can receive no conceivable revenue from this list (it does tend to sell a CD containing parts of hottest 100 lists but this page can't possibly have any impact on sales of that CD).

Even if the above copyright discussion is correct, and I'm not convinced that it is, I've written to the ABC's legal department to see if they can provide a copyright waiver. They should be willing to do so. Please do not delete these lists until I hear back from them. 152.91.9.115 (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny they seem to think they have the right to copyright their material. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I agree that the copyright notice may apply to this list, it should also be noted that this notice was no doubt intended to protect other aspects of what the ABC does. ABC not only runs a number of radio stations, but also 3 TV channels and a large news gathering organisation. Not to mention the production of a number of Australian television and radio programs. I'm sure that they will give permission for these lists to be released into the public domain or under a Wikipedia compatible license. Sesh (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep concur with the arguements already provided - the lists do have significant historical value - extremely notable. Dan arndt (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a copyright violation per nominator. Thryduulf (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The argument for deletion is that copyright exists upon this work because of Triple J's effort in preparing and broadcasting of the list. However, Copyright does not prohibit the independent creation of a substantially similar or identical work, provided there is no actual reproduction or copying of the original work by any means.

The original work was presented in the form of a radio broadcast. The individual pieces of information (the song artist name and song title) contained within that broadcast cannot be copyrighted, regardless of the format in which it was presented. Copyright protects the particular manner in which the information was arranged and presented.

In addition, the information presented in the various list articles independently researched and written for Wikipedia. The articles contain additional information that distinguishes the article from the original work. The labour and skill of the article author(s) in compiling this information further distinguish these articles from the original work. Keep --Camson (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it'd be hard to argue that we are violating their intellectual property in reproducing the list when the list is clearly called the "Triple J Hottest 100", indicating implicitly that it is a production of Triple J, and links to the site where they publish that information themselves. We had a similar argument recently about the ARIA Charts and range of related categories (where I'll admit I was the one to raise the copyright question) and I sought a legal opinion from the Foundation's counsel on it which basically said it was defensible (it's a case of not going overboard with the thing and keeping within sane limits, I guess.) Orderinchaos 03:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not going overboard? Every single year's vote results is being copied verbatim.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep See IceTV Pty Limited v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited 2009 HCA 14 (22 April 2009) para 42 and 43 for the Australian High Court's view on what constitutes originality in the expression of factual information. In this instance the only part that is original is the ordering of the songs. This material in this list is highly similar to that of the IceTV case, which the High Court has ruled did not violate copyright. Joshua mckinney (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Billboard_Year-End_Hot_100_singles_of_2008 for a recent US chart that had similar copyright concerns where wikipedia's decision was to keep the article. Joshua mckinney (talk) 03:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 2008 has nothing to do with this, since the Billboard list is based on sales, not a subjective vote. And the IceTV case again has nothing to do with this, since that has nothing to do with a subjective vote.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So we should delete all election results in Wikipedia as well? They are afterall a list of political parties ranked by a 'subjective vote'. Meatsacks (talk) 07:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The compilation that you are asserting is a covio is a not the individual subjective votes, but is the collection of facts that have been generated by people that have gathered that information. The page under discussion presents that each fact as 1. Artist - Title. This form of presentation is "not a form of expression which requires particular mental effort or exertion" to quote the HCA decision mentioned previously. In addition the decision states: "Whether a selection or arrangement of elements constitutes a substantial part of a work depends on the degree of originality of that selection or arrangement[59]. In this case, a chronological arrangement of times at which programmes will be broadcast is obvious and prosaic, and plainly lacks the requisite originality.". In a similar fashion, an ordinal arrangement of tracks which have been voted on by the public in the order by which they have been voted is likely to satisfy the same logical standard.Joshua mckinney (talk) 07:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is a list compiled from me (and thousands of others) buying a single or album any different in its compilation than a list of songs compiled from me (and others) submitting a web form indicating a preference for songs? Both are subjective... If anything Triple J are using other people's work insomuch as deciding a favourite song is some minimal effort on the part of voters (although presumably they agree to grant the ABC a right to use the vote for their poll). My opinion of my favourite song is subjective, yes, but comparison analysis of thousands of sales/opinions/votes constitute a fact. --Canley (talk) 11:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep based on the arguments above, unless the ABC writes back saying we can't do it. This AfD is ridiculous. Pwrong (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Stong Keep for all Hottest 100 articles - based on arguments above re: NOT violation of copyright, and in being a very significant historical event in Australian music and radio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.29.89.49 (talk) 03:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per above arguments. Rebecca (talk) 03:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but perhaps restructure - it's not a copyright violation, but needs to be presented in a fashion which appropriately represents Wikipedia policy. The Triple J Hottest 100 is one of the largest radio polls in the world, and songs which perform well on it wear it as a badge of honour, so there's no question of notability. Orderinchaos 03:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't think this is at all a clear cut case of copyright violation as the nominator seems to think. The IceTV v. Nine Network decision of the High Court of Australia cited above seems to be the most reasonable precedent to apply in this case, and other Australian media outlets (such as the Sydney Morning Heraldand the Herald Sun) seem to have no problems with reproducing the lists in their entirety. If they did so with the ABC's permission, then surely it is possible that such permission can be obtained for Wikipedia. As someone said on the discussion page, should we not publish election results for copyright reasons? They are also compiled from public voting by an Australian government organisation. --Canley (talk) 03:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep If you gather the facts yourself, the collection is not copyright, as interpreted by Finkelstein in Telstra Corporation Ltd v Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd. See  ... "Copyright protection did not extend to the facts themselves, so that a third person could publish the same facts, provided he collected the facts himself and did not copy them from another work." cojoco (talk) 06:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again, you people are not getting it. This is not a list of facts, this is a list of vote results.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How does this differ from the 81st_Academy_Awards, also a list of vote results? Joshua mckinney (talk) 07:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A vote result is a fact. Pwrong (talk) 08:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur, and to quote the OP: Oh my goodness this article is staying, just get over it, it's a list of songs, get over yourself. What next, delete the list of US presidents? FivePointPalmExplodingHeart (talk) 11:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OTRS ticket received at 2009071010018621 from ABC Aust. They are interested in granting permission, inasmuch as it is required. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification of this, and thanks to whoever contacted the ABC about this. --Canley (talk) 11:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This is no different to recording the results of an election- does Wikipedia need to count the votes itself to be legally allowed to post them? --Mossmaal (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Email reply from Triple J"Thanks for letting us know about the debate surrounding the Hottest 100 on wikipedia. We have contacted them via the email link that you provided letting them know that we have no problem with those lists being available on wikipedia." - Direct quote from an email i received from Triple J themselves regarding this topic. So given this, the action for deletion should be halted as they are willing to give an exemption for wikipedia to reproduce their lists.Jimboss123 (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Who then was a gentleman?=OWN3D... That is all... Keep - Ck786 (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Response - that's not a valid release; it's like a "only on Wikipedia" release for an image; we can't accept those. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And this needs to be addressed to WP:OTRS. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It has been sent to WP:OTRS, that was the link referred to in the quote i made above, i just put it here to update people on Triple J's stance on this issue.Jimboss123 (talk) 23:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - regardless of the copyvio/OTRS allowance issue, the topic is notable. Whether the full list should be included in the article is a question not for AFD - it's for the real (not us amateur wikilayers) to decide in another forum.The-Pope (talk) 02:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - since the person suggesting that we delete this is a turkey, and turkeys should not have a say in what happens. 203.192.80.31 (talk) 03:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, I have no problem with keeping these lists if ABC releases them. Until such a time, they're a copyright violation. Why people feel this has to be taken personally, I don't understand. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably because it's painfully obvious Triple J / The ABC have no problem with them being thereand yet you're persisting they should be deleted Geshpenst (talk) 05:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And I don't understand why you chose to bring a sectional copyvio issue to afd. The article(s) are notable - they should exist and cover the issues/timing/number of votes etc of each year's vote.  Whether or not the full list is published is a separate issue for the real lawyers to sort out.The-Pope (talk) 05:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? I tried to db-copyvio the 2009 one, but that got reverted.  How else would this be resolved?  Copyright violations are taken to AfD all the time, this is the appropriate venue.  And you haven't answered my question as to why this is so personal that people feel the need to assume bad faith and make attacks.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No one is attacking you - just disagreeing with you. To be fair, if the ABC doesnt have an issue with it, then there is no reason to delete the artice. As has been stated on numerous occasions, it is a significant article that has been referenced. The list is made public as soon as it it broadcast on the friggin radio! Just because it is being recorded on wiki does not make it a violation of copyright. You're not being attacked, you're just being stongly disagreed with on a ridiculous proposition... Take a teaspoon of cement and harden up princess - Ck786 (talk) 06:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably because it is personal. It's our ABC, my 8 cents (or $1.20 with inflation) a week, my vote that got that song in the top 100, my triple j rocks etc etc. Not that any of that excuses personal insults, of course.  florrie  06:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nobody's attacking me? Really?  Who then was a gentleman?=OWN3D... That is all... Keep - Ck786  Keep - since the person suggesting that we delete this is a turkey, and turkeys should not have a say in what happens. 203.192.80.31 Not to mention your dickish comment right above this.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Not to mention your dickish comment right above this. Who then was a gentleman?" - Is this not a personal attack of your own?? Fail. Stop winging... Ck786 (talk) 06:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable event, notable lists and the source is attributed.  florrie  06:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * More pwnage for this ridiculous deletion propostion - Information is published on the triple J website... http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/hottest100_alltime/countdown/cd_list.htm - Ck786 (talk) 06:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * More history here: http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/hottest100_08/history.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ck786 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So what? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "You must include the copyright notice in any copy that you make." The source is cited therefore the information can be reproduced here... Its not rocket science... Ck786 (talk) 06:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * any commercial exploitation is expressly prohibited.. Wikipedia content must be allowed to be reproduced by anyone, including commercial ventures, therefore the copyright limitations issued by abc itself precludes its being here.  It's not rocket science.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not according to the Wikipedia Terms of Use... http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use Ck786 (talk) 06:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to import text that you have found elsewhere or that you have co-authored with others, you can only do so if it is available under terms that are compatible with the CC-BY-SA license. prohibition against commercial use is not compatible with CC_BY_SA.  But, you know what, I'm through with this discussion.  Be dicks amongst yourselves.  This discussion runs 7 days. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Be dicks amongst yourselves. This discussion runs 7 days. Who then was a gentleman?" That would be another personal attack... wouldnt it??? Man up and stop being a hypocrite and stirring sh*t... Ck786 (talk) 08:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I can't believe this is even being nominiated. The lists are published everywhere and anywhere. -- Chuq (talk) 06:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Mr Gentleman, your initial reply of "Keep is not a valid option under Wikipedia copyright policy unless all of these redirect to Triple J Hottest 100. Should an admin decide that they want to keep this, I will immediately list it at WP:DRV" is a huge bad faith assumption on everyone else.  We have opinions, we all can read the policy.  We all can vote.  You should not decide on our behalf - nor threaten DRV involvement during the debate.  As for where this debate should be happening... well Copyright problems would an obvious starting point. A question to ask yourself is "Would you want the article deleted if it was exactly as it is today, but without the full list of songs in a table?"  If the answer is no, then AFD shouldn't have anything to do with the article. (and if you claim AFD for no WP:RSs, then in a day's time when the #1 song is announced, I bet there will be plenty of RS to back up the notability of the article.)The-Pope (talk) 06:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The list is compiled by people listening to the radio in real time and is not a reproduction of materials from the ABC website. The copyright notices linked to by Gentleman are for the website and cover website materials.  The compilation of the results by Wikipedians is not a violation of the terms of copyright, nor is use of Wikipedia's compilation for commercial purposes.  For results on the latest poll, results have been posted in real time on Facebook and Twitter, indicating that they are not covered by the ABC Online's copyright notice.DrDoogle (talk) 07:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per other lists of award winners. I'm thinking in particular of the Oscars, but there are many others. Orpheus (talk) 08:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Triple J website is not the sole source of these results - they are being released in real time via the @triplej Twitter feed, collated by individual listeners and will also be publicly disseminated at the conclusion of the countdown. Relying solely on the ABC website copyright as a reason for deletion is highly disingenuous. Furthermore is it questionable how the use of a list of facts by a commercial entity can be considered "exploitation". Rjbsmith (talk) 02:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Without doubt should be kept and furthermore Mr Gentlemen should be blocked/deleted as he quite clearly doesn't have the intelligence to necessitate a wikipedia account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlin14 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommyc (talk • contribs) 06:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This list was compiled from public votes by a Government-funded public broadcaster, and disseminated freely via many media. There is no copywritable editorial contribution to the list unless the voting was rigged. It's impossible to imagine any kind of legal problem unless the material was misattributed or substantially misrepresented. TheDewi (talk) 07:11, 12 July 2009 (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.