Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic 100 Symphony (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)[reply]

Classic 100 Symphony (ABC)[edit]

(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) 15:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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) 16:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons detailed at the Classic 100 Original delete discussion page. GFHandel. 20:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons detailed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic 100 original (ABC). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There was a eight cd box set of the results released which recieved reviews in The Courier-Mail (10 October 2009 by Patricia Kelly) and Daily Telegraph (short version of previous). There has also been coverage of the series of polls in general (such as in Kelly, Eamonn (25 October 2008), "Spin Doctor", The Australian and Juddery, Mark (25 June 2009), "Spin Doctor", The Australian) so if there is not enough for an individual article on this one poll then a merge or redirect should happen to an overall article such as Classic 100 Countdowns (ABC). duffbeerforme (talk) 07:15, 9 March 2011 (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.