Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2007 Macropædia articles

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. Courcelles (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2007 Macropædia articles[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. In addition, this could be construed as a copyright violation of Macropaedia's intellectual property. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 23:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for those reasons - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 1974 Macropædia articles. As a summary of contents, it is not a copyright violation. As to the rest: The Britannica's choices of what to write about in Macropædia are informative, and this list (with its links to the corresponding articles in Wikipedia) is useful as one way of identifying and evaluating articles on key subjects; this list can thus be seen as a significant top-level organizational tool. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a summary of contents, it's a Table of Contents. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's arguably a little bit more because it has a little bit of additional info, but in any event, it's not copyrightable content.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Intellectual property attorney hat = on). Yes, it is. The author of the original work exercises creativity in selecting coverage, and this is reflected in the recitation of this list in the table of contents. If the author had said, "here is a list of things I think should be covered in an encyclopedia", there is no question that list would be copyrightable. bd2412 T 20:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete Essentially this is just a table of contents, do we realy need one of these for every year? I propose we also delete the 2007 one also. --Deathawk (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Deathawk. This is basically just a table of contents, which isn't particularly useful without having the Encyclopædia Britannica nearby ... and if you had it nearby, you wouldn't need this list. Due to the Britannica′s structure of having mostly very broad topics in the Macropædia, I don't think one can learn anything significant about their coverage or non-coverage of certain topics from this list. There may be some topics that are not listed in this list, but which are included in other articles, that have more extensive coverage in Britannica than some topics that do have separate articles of their own. Furthermore, the selection of 2007 appears to be arbitrary; the Britannica began the major revamp of the Macropædia in 1985, and there does not seem to have been a significant change to it in 2007. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. bd2412 T 20:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom, and notability of this particular list is sparse. Them From Space 22:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:53, 18 July 2010 (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.