Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic 100 original (ABC)

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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 03:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Classic 100 original (ABC)

Classic 100 original (ABC) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Not notable, and possible copyright vio. Almost entire article is a copy of the list on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravpapa (talk • contribs) 2 March 2011

• Comment on copyright question: I have no opinion on the overall appropriateness of the list, but copyright concerns seem valid if the ABC offered a list of candidates from which the ranking was selected. Coincidentally, I have a question in to our associate counsel at this very moment concerning such survey lists in conjunction with User:Moonriddengirl/Copyright in lists. (If the list were the opinion of employees of ABC there would be no question of copyright; the question here involves when an organization offers a finite group of candidates which are then ranked by survey.) I've truncated the list to the top 5, even though per attorney feedback there may be issues with fair use in that, since the top 5 of the list is the most commercially valuable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete There is nothing notable about these lists. Many classical stations have exercises of this kind, e.g. Classic FM (UK) which has been running five years longer than the ABC one and has attracted independent coverage in the UK. The only coverage I've found for the ABC lists is by the station itself. Voceditenore (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep for the following reasons:
  1. There is precedent for these lists: Triple J Hottest 100. If the Classic 100 lists go, then so must the 23 Triple J countdown lists. Note that the Triple J lists were previously nominated for deletion, however the result was to keep them. That is an important precedent for these lists.
  2. These lists are essentially no different to the multitude of television episode lists that exist on WP (often for obscure shows). All of the television lists have information (e.g. episode titles) that are also provided by other sources around the Internet (including the networks airing the shows). If these lists go (for copyright reasons), then I'm afraid you'd better start to look at deleting all the lists of television shows that detail the titles (which is no different to displaying the titles of musical works). For example, the following page: http://www.fox.com/house/recaps/season-7/episode-1.htm lists the title of every episode of the House television series. That page is on the official Fox Broadcasting website and is (of course) copyright information (can you see the copyright notice at the bottom of the page?). When will you be asking for the list of titles to be removed from WP's web page that details the titles of every episode of House?
  3. The lists represent a significant body of work (added to, and maintained by lots of editors). The number of lists will obviously grow over the years as the ABC continues to promote more countdowns (there's been eight so far, and it's only getting more popular). WP (the encyclopaedia for everyone) should be there to record the details of the events for posterity.
  4. The lists are entirely non-controversial and do no harm. If you don't think they are "notable", just don't go to them. There are plenty of readers and editors who do believe they are notable enough to create and expand them.
  5. The lists are well constructed and demonstrate features (e.g. sorting and intelligent linking) indicating why WP should be used for more of this type of purpose. The information in the lists contains no opinion at all, and is well referenced. We should be considering some of these lists for being Featured Lists on WP (not for deletion).
  6. The ABC is a non-profit, non-commercial, government-run enterprise. That fits nicely with the philosophy of WP (which is one reason why ABC actively promotes the lists). It cannot be said that the lists are promoting any sort of commercial endeavour (which may be different to some of the other countdown lists mentioned as reason for deletion by Voceditenore). Note: I have no affiliation or association with the ABC.
  7. The lists provide more summary information than is found anywhere else on the internet. For example, the Classic 100 Ten Years On (ABC) list allows the sorting by composer, genre, and date completed—which is a facility not found anywhere else on the Internet. In addition (on that list), the "Rank in the Original 100" and "Change in rank" are valuable tools WP provides to people interested in these lists. (This is not OR as it is observationally confirmable.) The extra information (on most of the lists) is in direct contradiction to one of the key reasons proffered for deletion: "Almost entire article is a copy of the list on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation website".
  8. WP is acting in a journalist capacity in maintaining the lists. WP does up-to-the-minute journalistic work in a multitude of areas, so these lists shouldn't be an exception.
  9. During the countdowns, thousands of readers are attracted to the lists. The links in the lists no doubt drive these thousands to other pages on WP (in the musical arena). We need more readers (some of whom will become editors), not less.
  10. The lists support information in other areas of WP. For example, the Classic 100 Piano countdown page is linked in 4:33#Performances and recordings. It's true that a reference could be made to the ABC's page, but we should be aiming to keep readers on WP as much as possible (especially when some of the lists offer so much more than the ABC's web site—such as links to musical works and sorting).
  11. A "notability" tag (previously placed on one of the lists) was removed four months ago (and not by me). That removal was not met with any resistance from respected and experienced editors who watch and maintain the page (and that includes whoever put the notability tag on the page).
  12. The lists are actively promoted on Facebook (including by the ABC themselves), e.g. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Classic-100-Ten-Years-On/111930662199693 (note: none of the endorsement on FB was added by me). This drives people to WP, and we need all the readers and editors we can get.
  13. I notice that five entires (from the 100) have been retained on each of the Classic 100 Countdown pages. Why five? Why not six? Or seven? Do I have to spell out the proof by induction principle here?
  14. The ABC presenters themselves (on-air) directed people to the WP site, and thanked (on-air) the people involved in the WP lists for their hard work. We need more promotion for WP, not less. One comment by an ABC presenter (on-air) was that he was glad the WP lists were there so that everyone could look at the information forever. (How little he knew.)
  15. There is no copyright problem. The fact that Ravpapa has said "possible copyright vio" means that there is nothing obviously violating any copyright laws. The fact that Moonriddengirl has confirmed that the ABC themselves know about the lists indicates that they are comfortable with the existence of the lists. What's more, the ABC has been comfortable with these lists for 18 months now (which is plenty of time for them to have asked for the list to be removed had they wanted that). Of course the ABC doesn't want the information deleted, and in fact, the ABC themselves have directed their listeners to the WP site from their own web site (search for "Wiki: Classic 100 10 Years On"). That alone is a glowing endorsement for the let-out clause provided by Moonriddengirl herself: "if the list were the opinion of employees of ABC there would be no question of copyright".
  16. Precisely what the (anonymous and unknown) advice of an "associate attorney" has to do with possible copyright infringement in Australia is anyone's guess. Sorry, but that "legalese" stuff is a red herring in this debate. If you can establish and successfully test a real legal case in this area, then that might be a different matter, but please don't try to squeeze these (uncontroversial) lists into some sort of legal bag so you can say "the bag's getting really full now, we better be careful". Has there ever been a successful case of any legal entity suing WP for representing information in lists? It's obvious to everyone that the legal entities love having the listed information on WP (accurate and referenced of course) as it drives people towards the content the entities promote.
  17. From a personal point-of-view (which I realise will carry no weight here): I've created over 80 articles on WP, and am a regular content editor who has never had a block. I spend a lot of time finding material to reference articles (including visiting libraries), and regularly add significant amounts of content to articles. I know the rules, and often act as a calming influence during debates between other editors. I have an enormous amount of wiki-tasks lined up, and am gradually working through them. I'm not some newbie who is pushing some obscure personal cause with these lists. If these lists are deleted for some vague legalistic reason, then I intend to take a lengthy break from WP—a break which I'm certain will remind me why the real world has to be better than this. I doubt I would return.

 GFHandel.   20:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This is quite long; I'm only addressing the copyright issues.

First, I need to clarify that this is not "an" associate attorney; this is the Wikimedia Foundation's associate counsel, pending the emplacement of our permanent attorney later in the month. I cannot reproduce her e-mails without permission and she prefers to be low profile, but our correspondence has been facilitated by several members of WMF staff (who put me in touch with her) who I'm sure would verify them if needed. User:Philippe (WMF) was cc'ed on some of them, and I can certainly forward the others to him.

Wikipedia is based in the United States; what matters here is whether the content is public domain in the United States. It is U.S. laws with which we must comply. It has long been understood on Wikipedia that lists that are based on opinion are copyrightable under U.S. law; we handle this by truncating them in an attempt to comply with fair use. You can read many conversations about this in the archives of WT:CP and WT:C. For an example, see The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time. Titles themselves are not copyrightable; a list based on opinion, on the other hand, is.

The reason I truncated them to the top of 5 is because of what the Wikimedia Foundation's attorney said. I have asked her for further clarification on whether there is any rule of thumb percentage we may use, but I have not yet received a response.

All that said, I am confused as to where I "confirmed that the ABC themselves know about the lists". I wonder if you are misreading something I wrote. I have no idea if they are aware of these copies of the lists. You are almost certainly misreading this, I'm afraid, if you think it is created by ABC. Wikipedia's content is mirrored on Facebook. See [1], including the linked FAQ. If ABC is willing to license this material under CC-By-SA, which allows both commercial reproduction and modification, then all of our issues would be over; AFI was willing to do that with their lists (cf. AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes.) We do need that permission made official, however; it is not (and never has been) enough for them to permit it to be used on Wikipedia; they have to license it compatibly. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Read the bold writing in point 15 ("the ABC themselves..."). The fact that the ABC has:

• gone to the trouble of modifying their own site to link to the Classic 100 WP list,
• endorsed the lists on-air,
• endorsed the lists on Facebook,

are proof that they are comfortable with the list articles. There is no way that the ABC would bring a case against WP based on those actions alone, and I'm quite certain that such a case would fail based on their explicit endorsement.

The comparison to AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes is not a fair analogy. That page specifically details material from the movies involved (quotations from the scripts). The Classic 100 Countdown pages are summaries of events that transpired during the countdown (check the histories). In contrast to your analogy, it's not a copyright problem to mention that "Symphony No. 9 (Choral)" was number 1 in the countdown. Perhaps if material had been reproduced from the Symphony (printed music or an audio grab) your analogy would be better, but that hasn't happened. I haven't even gone near "fair use" aspects (yet) as the material that you are considering as part of copyright is only the starting point for all the other information attached in the list—have a look at all the other columns at Classic 100 Ten Years On (ABC) that aren't available on the ABC's web site.

 GFHandel.   21:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

AFI doesn't have license to grant permission for the language from the scripts; they don't own that copyright. They own the ranking of quotes as well as all the other AFI lists that they've permitted, such as AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies and AFI's 100 Years...100 Songs. All of these are governed by the copyright release they mailed the foundation.

Opinion-based lists are copyrightable. Countdowns are opinion-based, unless they are purely formulaic (as in greatest # of sales). It's not a copyright problem to mention that "Symphony No. 9 (Choral)" was number 1 in the countdown, but it is a copyright problem to list out all 100 or even the majority of them. If they know about the articles Wikipedia (still not seeing where, as you say, "Moonriddengirl has confirmed that the ABC themselves know about the lists indicates that they are comfortable with the existence of the lists.") then they may be willing to grant permission. (See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. But they have to grant us permission unless our attorney tells us that we can use lists that are based on public surveys, where a preselected grouping of items is offered for ranking. As I mentioned, I've already asked her about this. But she's already told us that we are only safe using lists that are purely formulaic and that, where they are not, we must limit the number we offer to conform to fair use. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• I understand what you are saying, that opinion-based lists are copyrightable. But they are copyrightable in the sense that another entertainment medium can’t take the material and use it as if it is its own. We can write about the ABC show, just as we can write about other copyrighted works such as Mission: Impossible (film) (along with the movie poster, which is also copyrighted). You wrote in the preamble of this nom that it was a *possible* copyright violation. I suggest you get your facts concretely established before *working* this angle. Your logic is extremely dubious to me; it’s even right in the article title that we are speaking of an ABC show and discussing it as an encyclopedic treatment. Greg L (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• No, I didn't. User:Ravpapa wrote that. I didn't nominate this article for deletion, and I have no opinion on whether or not it should be kept. I do, however, have a strong interest in copyright on Wikipedia; I've been working it heavily for almost three years now. We can write about copyrighted lists, but we cannot reproduce them. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I caught my error and was coming back to correct it when I see you responded. Very well. The article is about a show that was a top-100 and the article mentions five of them. The ol’ reasonable man-test suggests we could write what the last five were too and still be well clear of filching anywhere near a significant portion of the work. Can we shelve the bit about copyright violations as an issue under consideration then? It doesn’t seem to be germane with the article written as it currently is. Right? Greg L (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• The articles mention five now; they used to list all 100. :) I'm the one who abbreviated them. The reason it is under discussion still, presumably, is that GFHandel still has some concerns with that action. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. I saw that the whole list was there. GFHandel is highly knowledgable about music and we ought not be driving away valuable editors possessing such expertise. And that can happen when they don’t understand copyright law, go over a line, and the remedy by those exhibiting authority seems overly draconian. I find a 5% limit to be erring on the side of caution—perhaps too far. The proper course here is to cut as much slack as you are comfortable with insofar as to what portion of the list can be mentioned in order to convey the nature of ABC's list. I should think that the last sixteenth and the first sixteenth (the top six and the last six) is perfectly adequate to A) convey the nature of the list, while B) leaving 7/8ths of the list off so as there is no copyright violation. Would you agree? Greg L (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• I didn't pick the number randomly. According to our interim attorney, listing the top 5 out of 100 may be pushing it; those are specifically figures she used prior to my ever becoming aware of this article (see Wikipedia talk:NFC#Attorney feedback). I've asked her if she can give us more concrete guidance, but it usually takes about a week to get a response and that was yesterday (or the day before; I lose track) checked.. One of the problems here, and this may be confusing to those who don't follow US copyright law, is that the usage here is not remotely transformative (a problem she also noted); there is no critical commentary about the list, it is simply an article that reproduces it. Our best bet of making a good claim for fair use is to discuss the list in critical context; otherwise, we are merely competing with a financial entity. Now, they may be perfectly fine with our reproducing the list; AFI was fine with our reproducing the lists. But we can't presume that. And unless that is confirmed, we have to try to work within the guidelines offered us by legal counsel. She actually suggested that using the lower numbers is safer for us, but I'm not at all sure that most editors would be comfortable selecting, say, the bottom 10. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Very well. What I see is that as now-trimmed, copyright violation given the current length is no longer a real concern here? Greg L (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• That's my opinion, yes. :) And if our interim attorney provides feedback that would make more of this okay, I'll certainly pass that along as soon as it comes in. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Good. Thanks. I had a boss years ago, who had an expression (“This is gonna be a real butt-itch”) to describe problems that were uncomfortable to deal with in public. I see there are other lists, such as Triple J Hottest 100. There are probably dozens—perhaps scores of these. I’m at a loss to discern the litmus test for what passes and what doesn’t. Good luck; it appears you are in for a trial-by-fire. :-P Greg L (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Have a read of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triple J Hottest 100, 2009. Issues to do with why copyright is not a problem were covered there. As one editor commented: "so we should delete all election results in Wikipedia as well?" (my example: 2008_US_Presidential_Election#State_results). At some point everyone needs to step back, take a deep breath, and consider the "legal" difference between A) harmless lists that summarise events (lists that attribute the source both in reference and title), and B) copyright violations where material has been reproduced that financially disadvantages the owner (e.g. text from a book or newspaper, audio and video grabs, etc.). It is unfair to coalesce summary lists like these (and they are all over WP) with copyright issues involving the dark end of the spectrum. Has a legal case ever been brought against WP for reproducing (attributed) material in a summary list? If so, was it successful? What damages do you feel the ABC would be able to claim in practice (and we both know that such a case would never approach court since the ABC have kindly directed their web page visitors to one of the lists—an explicit endorsement)? We must also not start fantasizing that this will all eventually end up in a wood-panelled court room with Perry Mason at the helm resulting in the responsible parties at WP being hauled off to Sing Sing in chains for a thirty-to-life stretch. At worst, all that would happen would be a simple desist notice, at which point the lists could be removed in (oh, say) 60 seconds.  GFHandel.   20:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not only consider the risk to ourselves, but to the people that we encourage to reuse our content downstream, including print publications who cannot remove the list in 60 seconds. But all of this is moot. The WMF retains the services of attorneys to help address these questions. The attorney currently working with the WMF has said that with lists we are really are only safe where they are completely formulaic. As I have explained, I had already written her just to make sure with lists of this nature, where larger groups of people are polled; her answer will determine how this material is handled. This is up to our attorney. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You have (more than) decimated the eight ABC Classic 100 countdown lists to prevent/reduce the possibility that some downstream entity reproduces the data, falls foul of copyright violation, and causes legal repercussion for WP. We all know that (in this case) that's a practical impossibility, however if that's your stance, there's nothing I can do. Why are you permitting the possibility of an identical problem to remain in the 23 Triple J Hottest 100 lists? In many ways, the information in those lists presents far more of a copyright risk for WP. Shouldn't it be one rule for all at WP?  GFHandel.   23:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you about the purpose of Wikipedia's copyright policies. As to the other lists, I have not yet looked at them. I do not generally take action while awaiting attorney response; in this case, it was to prevent the deletion of the articles as a copyright problem by eliminating the copyright problem. So far as I know, they are not up for deletion. What I did here was reduce the lists as has long been custom on Wikipedia when copyright concerns are raised about lists; that other material may not have been handled appropriately doesn't really have bearing--we don't have a central overview of new content (ala WP:OTHERSTUFF). You seem to be convinced that the souce would approve of the use of the list; have you written them to ask for permission yet? If they license the content, the issue of copyright goes away no matter what our attorney may say about the underlying issue (although, of course, notability concerns may persist.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"I have not yet looked at them..."—well now's your chance. You've opened all of our eyes to the dreadful danger that these lists represent, and none of us should rest easily while all that copyright information is blatantly displayed. I will start the process of asking the ABC—is there a template for the release of the copyright information, and where should the ABC send it?  GFHandel.   00:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a template; it's at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries, and the e-mail address is listed there. It includes all the information necessary; please ask them to specify that they are releasing all of their lists or to indicate which ones. Generally, there may be up to a week in processing, but if you notify me that they've sent in permission, I'll be happy to try to facilitate that. As to the other articles, I will undoubtedly be looking at them if our attorney says we can't use them. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, and I will start the process. Why not reduce each of the 23 Triple-J lists to five entries to eliminate/reduce the possibility of problems which might arise from downstream copyright-related issues (now that you are aware of their existence)?  GFHandel.   01:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems we must; I have now heard back from our attorney. She affirms that copyright concerns exist in survey lists of this type and confirms that with survey articles "any use of them should be guided by fair use principles". (More detail at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, we don't have to after all; we have permission for those. The OTRS template was not logged at each page; I'm remedying that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I have emailed the ABC detailing the issue and asked them to complete the template releasing the information for use on WP. Would it be possible to delay the delete proceedings until a response is heard (at least for a reasonable amount of time)?  GFHandel.   06:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I won't be closing this one since I don't like to mix my copyright work with other admin proceedings, generally, but it really shouldn't matter to the AfD in general. By reducing the lists, I have removed the copyright urgency, so really this AfD should work on notability alone. If the ABC grants permission, the full lists can be restored anytime. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

@Moonriddengirl: You wrote above: "Oh, we don't have to after all; we have permission for those. …" What are "those" for which we have permission? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think she's referring to the Triple J Hottest 100 lists. OTRS permission was received for these but only logged onto one of the lists, Talk:Triple J Hottest 100, 1989, instead of all of them. Voceditenore (talk) 07:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly; sorry for the confusing pronoun. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep (Per the above thread, copyright concerns are no longer an issue here. So…)The community is trying to build the project here. An article on music will be of little interest to someone interested in cartoons or guns. We have articles on The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show, and have articles on individual Rocky & Bullwinkle episodes, such as Metal-Munching Mice. This idea of *notabilty* is a giant gray area. Like a Supreme Court justice once said about defining pornograhy: “I know it when I see it.” The article in question, “Classic 100 original (ABC)” is of just as much interest to those readers as “Metal-Munching Mice” is to its readership. Wikipedia, now at 6,828,531 articles, is an electronic encyclopedia; it isn’t a print version that has to fit into two meters of shelf space. There is ample electronic white space for niche articles on music just as there is on individual episodes of The Simpsons or Rocky & Bullwinkle. Greg L (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete, This could not possibly be considered notable. There could be almost any number of articles about polls like this, whuch would have been barely interesting to (the small number of) listeners at the time. At least there can only be one article on fictitious television characters (who are of much greater interest to our readers, especially our female readers, who we are accused of alienating).--Grahame (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Does there need to be an audit of such lists throughout WP, then? Tony (talk) 09:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I created nine of these deletion requests, one for each of the Classic 100 articles, believing that this was an open and shut case. What a fool I was! There are now nine deletion discussions, all of which are covering exactly the same arguments. Can some smart administrator merge these into one deletion discussion? Thanks --Ravpapa (talk) 12:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete: Greg L notes that this article is no less notable than The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show. As one who have absolutely no interest in the Rocky and Bullwinkle show, who has never seen it, and who has no desire to see it, I have to agree with him. However, there is a fundamental difference between the two articles. The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show is a collection of information from a variety of sources; it is an article about the show. This article, on the other hand, is not about the Classic 100 Original list; it is the Classic 100 original list. It is simply a beautified copy of the work that ABC has done, with no added value whatsoever.

I suggest that, if the community deems this list of value to the encyclopedia, it go out and find some information about it. Perhaps there are news articles which discuss its value, or that analyze the way the list is generated? Otherwise, there is absolutely no logic in simply copying the content of another organization's website to the Wikipedia and calling it an article. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Which is a really good point -- TV series episode lists are just extensions of the main articles. These lists are just kind of...flaoting lists with no real context, especially as, as someone said, they are just one random radio station's version of something that happens with MANY stations. If the lists aren't covered in multiple places as being somehow different (i.e. more notable) than any other, there's no real point to these articles. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"...with no added value whatsoever"—"the Classic 100 original" list is the oldest and simplest of the lot (and it is a pity this discussion is being held on its talk page). Have a look at the state of the most recent of the countdowns (before it was brutalised in copyright paranoia): the Classic 100 Ten Years On (ABC) countdown. Value was most definitely being added. The articles are all under constant change and of course, there is no deadline at WP.  GFHandel.   19:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: GFHandel has a point. The value that the Wikipedia article adds to the list is (1) the ability to sort the list by various criteria, and (2) links to other Wikipedia articles on the specific works cited. There is no informational value added, but I suppose that technological bells and whistles count for something.

My initial impression, when I encountered these articles, was that they were created by someone from ABC, and their sole purpose was to encourage readers to click on the link to the ABC website. I now realize that this impression was wrong. GFHandel, at least, one of the main architects of these articles, does not appear to be in the employ of ABC, and is a serious editor. I understand from his comments on this page, and, obliquely, from his comments on my talk page that he believes sincerely and even passionately that these articles add value to the encyclopedia.

I am by temperament an inclusionist when it comes to deciding what should be in the encyclopedia. Therefore, though I still believe these articles are mere listspam, I am changing my vote from Delete to Uncommitted. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Probably keep—I don't have time right now to run through the full arguments about copyright, etc, but it does seem to be an unfortunate consequence of WP's policies and guidelines if this can't be kept, especially when the broadcaster appears to be right on board with the existence of the WP article, via their website and live-radio comments. Ravpapa, please note, the noun is "the ABC", not "ABC", which is used as the noun-title for the US company. Tony (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep According to the first pillar at Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia is also an almanac. These lists are a typical part of those; there's added value here, as GFHandel points out, through links and sortability. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Changing from Uncommitted to Keep: Having set off this storm, I realize now it is a tempest in a teapot. Because these articles are so marginal that they hardly seem worth the debate. It is a rare day that any of these Classic 100 articles generate more than three or four hits, less than articles on such extremely marginal figures as Johann Gottlieb Graun or Walter Willson Cobbett. This is perfectly understandable: why would anyone look in the Wikipedia for information on the ABC surveys, rather than at the ABC website itself? In a Google search for "Classic 100 Piano", the Wikipedia article does not even show up on the first three pages.

Why anyone would invest time working on an article that no one will read is a mystery to me. But, nonetheless, I say, leave them be - they only take up disk space, no more harm than that. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reintroducing me to a genuinely rare event on WP: an editor who is willing to adapt their thinking and actions based on investigation. Regarding "Why anyone would invest time working on an article that no one will read is a mystery to me"—the corridors of human knowledge have many dark and remote corners. It's nice that WP can have something to offer those who want to find those places. Once again, thank you.  GFHandel.   20:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment Ravpapa's vote change rationale strikes me as a bit idiosyncratic, as it seems no solid justification has been advanced based on WP policies, but a variant of WP:NOHARM, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Note that this is not America's Got Talent, and the number of hits generated by any article is completely irrelevant to whether an article deserves to be kept or deleted. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

A question for GFHandel: How does this list differ from Zagat's list of the 50 best restaurants in New York? Should that list also have an article in the Wikipedia? --Ravpapa (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me know when it does have an article on WP, and we can have this discussion. If you did want a pre-emptive point of difference, how about: unlike a list of restaurants, the Classic 100 have no commercial interests?  GFHandel.   19:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep There was coverage of the poll itself in Stephens, Tony; Wyld, Ben (21 November 2001), "Play It Again, Wolfgang, Australia's Favourite Decomposer", Sydney Morning Herald, "Mozart Bach to the future", Gold Coast Bulletin, 22 November 2001 and Bray, David (8 February 2002), "ABC Classic FM this week released the...", Courier-Mail along with smaller pieces "ABC Mozart gets his wind up", Herald-Sun, 23 November 2001 and "Mozart tops", MX (Australia), 21 November 2001. There was an eight cd box set of the results released which was reviewed in The Australian (2 March 2002 by Deborah Jones). duffbeerforme (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2011 (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.