Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of CW affiliates

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 speedy keep as the OTRS ticket in question has nothing to do with this and is being improperly cited as a reason to delete these articles. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of CW affiliates

Copyright violation per OTRS ticket #2008091610055854. Also nominating:

for same reason.

ViperSnake151 12:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I also nominate:

Comment Shouldn't OTRS issues be handled elsewhere ? Equendil Talk 13:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I could be wrong, but I believe the copyright claim is related to only one of the data columns in these tables. If so, these lists should be restructured to eliminate references to that particular column of data, so that the articles can otherwise survive. I agree with Equendil that OTRS issues should be handled otherwise than at WP:AFD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although lists of affiliates are an encyclopedic topic and I think it's obvious that these would need to be kept in some form, I think the nominator is correct that there are problems with how these lists are organized. Except for List of WB affiliates, which is arranged from Alabama to Wyoming, the rest of these attempt to rank the stations by the size of the TV market. You can find Denver, but it's somewhere between "Cleveland-Akron" and "Orlando-Daytona Beach". I'll confess that I don't know what an OTRS issue is, and hope that someone can explain it. Mandsford (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTRS. To put it simply, OTRS, in a Wikipedia context, means that somebody submitted a complaint to the Wikimedia Foundation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nothing for AFD to do here. Wikipedia:Copyright problems is second door on the left. Stifle (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Delete all (G12) — copyright infringement. MuZemike (talk) 21:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- It is still very much under discussion whether these are copyright violations, and they are certainly not blatant enough to qualify under CSD:G12. Let's not be hasty. Stifle (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, I understand, now. Stricken. MuZemike (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reclassify We should hold off any deletion decision until everything is clarified on the noticeboard topic. I would reorganize all of these by state in order to satisfy the Nielsen request to pull their data, but deletion should not be a step to take unless we can do absolutely nothing to fix this. We're far from that step at this point, and these can be rescued. Nate • (chatter) 23:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lists, tables, compilations of data, and the like are not covered under copyright. If some amount of the lead text is copied, remove it in the meantime and replace it with a single sentence, but the data in the tables is not novel. user:j (aka justen) 05:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More information on the underlying takedown request is here: Wikipedia:AN#Nielson DMCA Takedown. I believe simply removing the "DMA" column from the tables on these articles should suffice in removing any threat of a copyright violation, however baseless I consider said threat to be. Will post a mention of this AfD in aforementioned discussion. user:j (aka justen) 06:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If Nielsen wants those articles taken down, they know how to contact Wikipedia. --Carnildo (talk) 06:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That's misleading. The OTRS ticket in question does not address any of those articles ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. As previously mentioned, there is nothing for a communal decision about inclusion to do. If knuckling under the DMCA notice requires the deletion or editing of these articles, those with the knowledge to determine that - something we don't have - will be able to take care of it faster than an AfD can. Whether or not there'll be anything left worth having these articles is not something that we can evaluate now. So thanks for the sentiment, but this nomination can't work.
Could someone who wasn't too busy getting involved in the debate close this under the snowball clause, please? --Kiz o r 06:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - any articles that were problematic under the DMCA takedown notice were deleted at the time of the initial deletions, so the OTRS basis is faulty. A mass nomination based on it is not going to yield any useful results. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:01, 21 September 2008 (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.