Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of UK Rock Chart number-one albums of 2010

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. ^King Jakob _C2 22:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)[reply]

List of UK Rock Chart number-one albums of 2010[edit]

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

Largely based on Official Charts Company data, over which they assert Database right, see Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Chartarchive.org, AFD as potential copyvio. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wait, what? No one can assert copyright over raw data. Ozzy's album "Scream" was #1 on the UK Rock Chart from June 27th til July 4th 2010. That is a simple and verifiable fact. If Business XYZ has a database of such facts, they have protection for the arrangement or organization, but no control at all over who makes use of or references it. Tarc (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is largely based on OCC's database, It thus re-uses a substantial portion of it, and is thus derivative of it. I appreciate that the situation the UK is absurd, but the above article is still a possible copyvio (by virture of the reuse of a substantial portion of the OCC database). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - From Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights: "While Wikipedia prefers content that is free anywhere in the world, it accepts content that is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries." So UK law is not a proper ground for deletion, and U.S. copyright law does not recognize database rights. postdlf (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - @postdlf- So by your logic it's OK? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, though I do not hold copyright in that logic under American law, so you can use it as well. postdlf (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of0 United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sooo...how about you withdraw this and the other related AFDs, hmm? I don't see a reason to spend any more time on them. postdlf (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting for other opinions :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A copyright violation might exist if the entire chart from specific weeks were being reprinted in Wikipedia, but not a list of number ones from each week. However, its hard to justify lists like these because, unlike the main UK singles and albums charts, I'm not sure this information is covered anywhere beyond the primary source. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genre-specific charts are featured on BBC Radio 1's website, and in the magazines Music Week and UKChartsPlus. They are also sometimes featured on the TV channel 4Music. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Obviously concerns over copyright violations are a perfectly fair reason to propose deletion, but I would be extremely reluctant to see all the articles listed here be deleted from Wikipedia, especially when several of them are featured lists. Also, our only basis for concern at the moment is a couple of paragraphs left on chartstats.com, a webpage that several editors have, in the past, flagged as not being a reliable source. Like Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, I suspect that the reason why Chartstats were forced to stop is that they were reprinting entire charts verbatim on their website – we're printing only a small amount of data: just the number ones. There are several other websites that publish the same information (e.g. Number Ones, everyHit and The Ones), and the OCC seems to have no problem with them. Personally, I think we're okay, but then IANAL. I have sent an e-mail to the OCC, asking for some clarification – hopefully they'll respond soon. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OCC have now gotten back to me. They have said that they will seek advice from their legal team on what would/would not constitute infringement, and let us know soon. On a related note, they are also keen to work with Wikipedia on a more formal basis, contributing information and citations relating to our articles about the UK's music charts. I think that would be an extremely useful partnership for us to have, but obviously I'm in no position to be representing Wikipedia in any official capacity – any idea whom I should really direct them to? Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice that they responded to you and have an interest in aiding the efforts of Wikipedia. Not sure how they can help in contributing information and citations since most of the work here is done by volunteers, but a disclaimer on their website on how Wikipedians can use their information would be helpful. Perhaps there is an appropriate contact listed at Wikipedia:Contact us for them to use. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep anyway and hope the situation resolves itself. Listmeister (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination for this and simillar Withdrawn pending further informations Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2013 (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.