Copyright violation. It doesn't matter how many people vote keep against policy, policy requires that these pages be deleted. Included are all of the other pages listed on the AfD.
Who then was a gentleman? (
talk) 05:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Endorse original close as keep.
User:Stifle's summary of the
OTRS ticket received from the organisation the nominator believes holds copyright on the list appears to indicate that they neither believe the list is copyrighted by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and would grant permission if it is required. Most respondents on the original AFD believe that the list was not under copyright as it was the results of a public vote much like any political election or voted awards such as the Oscars. Perhaps it would be clearer if we knew the exact wording of Triple J's correspondence on the matter – there does not seem to be any indication that permission was granted for publication on Wikipedia only which I gather is the main objection here, so it would certainly be prudent to ensure that Triple J were aware of Wikipedia's licence terms being that text is permitted to be copied for profit. That said, the widespread publishing of the full list on all major Australian newspapers' websites today would indicate that Triple J and the ABC are not protective of the list as copyrighted information. --
Canley (
talk) 06:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Sorry folks; I'd been away so wasn't able to update you all on the follow-up received from ABC at
Ticket:2009071010018621. It releases the text of the articles in the above-mentioned AFD under CC-BY-SA. This can now be closed.
Stifle (
talk) 08:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Endorse own closure, the nominator failed to make a good argument as to why it was in fact a copyvio. This point of view was deconstructed by multiple users in the discussion, and that point aside, there was no other rationale to delete, and the discussion couldn't have closed as anything worse than no consensus. I would also point interested users towards my comments on
this talk page in response to the closure. Now that we are here at DRV, I also have to opine that I found the nominator's pre-emptive declaration that he would
take the article to DRV if he didn't get the result he wanted to be in incredibly poor faith and quite inappropriate.
Lankiveil(
speak to me) 10:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC).reply
Endorse Closure - with the OTRS release any support for the copyright violation assertion appears to have vanished. No remaining reasons for deletion to consider -
Peripitus(Talk) 12:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Speedy close. Stifle's remark obliges us to endorse this, and I see no point in dragging the matter out.—
S MarshallTalk/
Cont 12:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Endorse, OTRS CC-BY-SA release rather precludes a copyvio... I also agree with S Marshall that this DRV can be closed.
Usrnme h8er (
talk·contribs) 13:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Copyright violation. It doesn't matter how many people vote keep against policy, policy requires that these pages be deleted. Included are all of the other pages listed on the AfD.
Who then was a gentleman? (
talk) 05:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Endorse original close as keep.
User:Stifle's summary of the
OTRS ticket received from the organisation the nominator believes holds copyright on the list appears to indicate that they neither believe the list is copyrighted by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and would grant permission if it is required. Most respondents on the original AFD believe that the list was not under copyright as it was the results of a public vote much like any political election or voted awards such as the Oscars. Perhaps it would be clearer if we knew the exact wording of Triple J's correspondence on the matter – there does not seem to be any indication that permission was granted for publication on Wikipedia only which I gather is the main objection here, so it would certainly be prudent to ensure that Triple J were aware of Wikipedia's licence terms being that text is permitted to be copied for profit. That said, the widespread publishing of the full list on all major Australian newspapers' websites today would indicate that Triple J and the ABC are not protective of the list as copyrighted information. --
Canley (
talk) 06:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Sorry folks; I'd been away so wasn't able to update you all on the follow-up received from ABC at
Ticket:2009071010018621. It releases the text of the articles in the above-mentioned AFD under CC-BY-SA. This can now be closed.
Stifle (
talk) 08:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Endorse own closure, the nominator failed to make a good argument as to why it was in fact a copyvio. This point of view was deconstructed by multiple users in the discussion, and that point aside, there was no other rationale to delete, and the discussion couldn't have closed as anything worse than no consensus. I would also point interested users towards my comments on
this talk page in response to the closure. Now that we are here at DRV, I also have to opine that I found the nominator's pre-emptive declaration that he would
take the article to DRV if he didn't get the result he wanted to be in incredibly poor faith and quite inappropriate.
Lankiveil(
speak to me) 10:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC).reply
Endorse Closure - with the OTRS release any support for the copyright violation assertion appears to have vanished. No remaining reasons for deletion to consider -
Peripitus(Talk) 12:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Speedy close. Stifle's remark obliges us to endorse this, and I see no point in dragging the matter out.—
S MarshallTalk/
Cont 12:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Endorse, OTRS CC-BY-SA release rather precludes a copyvio... I also agree with S Marshall that this DRV can be closed.
Usrnme h8er (
talk·contribs) 13:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.