Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 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 Redirect. The only content left in the article after the list is removed is an announcement that the page will list the 100. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Time 100

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Copyright violation, speedy declined by User:Runningonbrains, currently being discussed at Wikipedia:ANI#Copyright and lists. As this is still an unambiguous copyright violation, it needs to be quickly deleted. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Neutral It's been blanked, it's good. The subject is obviously notable. We don't just AfD things that have copyright issues, we try to find ways to fix those issues. Otherwise CCI would be an easy job, because they'd just have to delete everything. Silver seren^C 18:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the article titled on 2012 Time 100 deleted for this concern, so why not for this 2011 Time 100, 2010 Time 100 and so on articles? We try to find ways to fix those issues!--Aashaa (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure we can host the list itself, but we can surely write an article about the list noting its reception by the public and the media. Them From Space 21:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Well known annual list which meets WP:NLIST. Revdel the copyright version. Referenced discussion of the complete list from reliable sources. Per WP:LISTPEOPLE, individual entries who have articles and are independently sourced can be included. Article list should be alphabetical, preferably sortable, including positions only if independently sourced, too (could be same independent reference as entry). That's a lot of work, but would only be a complete list if. Dru of Id (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, according to Moonriddengirl, we can't even use a partial list, as the list itself is copyrighted. What we have to do is turn the independently sourced items into prose. It would actually be fairly easy to work that into a few sections, such as with one about the Gala and the speeches various awardees made (Colbert's and Clinton's). Silver seren^C 04:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Their creative content of positioning on the list consists of taking a non-random group of 100 people, applying their own criteria, and giving them a non-random number from 1 to 100. Our filter of "article first" precludes a derivitive work, unless we had articles on absolutely none of these individuals prior to their list (we've said many of these people were notable before Time did), and an independenttly sourced alphabetical list or individuals we have articles on, with or without position would be a mere presentation of facts listed in other references, and does not approach the creative content level of musical compositions, lyrics, and written works which have separately been challenged and upheld. The facts are citable in individual articles; those we have articles on can be acknowledged as having been positioned on the list. Dru of Id (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTPEOPLE addresses only whether or not people can be included on lists per WP:BLP. It does not touch on the copyright status of the list. The fact that you would be clustering them in one place solely and demonstrably because they are on this list makes that unworkable, I'm afraid. Certainly we can have as many articles on these people as we like, but we wouldn't be including them in the article if they weren't on the list. Likewise, we can have songs on all of the people and events discussed in "It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine)" without any fear whatsoever of infringing on that song, but we can only bring them into the article on the song to discuss under fair use - and the more of them we have, the more likely we are to fail the fair use test. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the list, then merge and redirect to Time 100. WP:GNG requires "significant coverage" of the topic. Most of the sources are of the type "X appeared in the list". This is mindlessly appending a news articles to each item of the list in order to say that it's cited, a violation of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTCATALOG. We don't add content just because it's verifiable. Those sources are really about the mentioned people and they belong in their article, not in the article about the list.

Where is the critical analysis that allows us to write an encyclopedic article about specifically the 2012 list? Two of the sources make critical commentary about the selection criteria across several yearsfew women, no fatherhoods, ballot-stuffing in online voting, which means that they really belong to Time 100. Only one source makes actual commentary about the 2012 list: , old media vs social media.

In summary: if you remove all the NOTNEWS and NOTCATALOG stuff, you are left with a few sentences at most, which can be merged to Time 100. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. I agree completely with Enric Naval. The 2012 list in itself is not notable, there are no sources about this list, just scattered mentions that "John Doe was on the 2012 list". As such, this list does not meet WP:GNG. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I don't see anything in the existing references nor could I find any others which make the 2012 list notable on its own. Each list should achieve notability on its own to have its own article. Even then, great care needs to be taken to avoid infringing on the copyright. Individual mentions of who is on the list (if properly sourced) can go in the respective biographies. Any other mentions or commentary on the 2012 list can be merged into the main article. WTucker (talk) 05:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think a merger, as suggested above, for the few non copyvio sentences would be the best outcome. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, clear case of copyright in lists, but it's still a valid search term. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. There's nothing left after blanking the offending material, but maybe we can redirect it to a more neutral name. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.