Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sporting News - Football's 100 Greatest Players

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. -- Cirt (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Sporting News - Football's 100 Greatest Players[edit]

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

This article's contents are the property of the The Sporting News, a copying of the list constitutes a copyvio.

See here, here, and soon enough here for precedent. Quadzilla99 (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While there's no evidence that TSN intended to copyright its rankings -- magazines and newspapers thrive on the publicity that these things get because it bolsters their quest for recognition as an "authority" on the subject-- this is a pretty silly article. When did the list come out? Did it make news when it did? Is there some link to it somewhere that we can look at to verify it? Cut-and-paste at its finest. Mandsford 03:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a direct link to the archived article for this topic that has a copyright at the bottom:[1] Quadzilla99 (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually that's a just a link to one of the numbers (Lawrence Taylor no. 4) but its copyrighted. Quadzilla99 (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I left the source at the bottom of the page. There used to be a link at TSN's website but I couldn´t find it Argsoccer (talk) 13:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in addition to the copyright issues above (which may or may not resolve favorably to keep) My reason to delete is because it's simply re-hashing 100% of the information in another article on another source. This isn't an encyclopedic entry for us, but something that we would use to reference and source another encyclopedic entry. Wikipedia is not a mirror server.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the subject of the book titled: The Sporting News Selects Football's 100 Greatest Players: A Celebration of the 20th Century's Best and a free reprinting of the list would basically remove a lot of the incentive to buy the book. Quadzilla99 (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that, but the policy consideration isn't whether the article would help or hurt book sales (I'd say the former if it's a new book, but this looks like a pre-Peyton 1990s list). However, the article doesn't give any information that suggests that this was notable when it came out. In 1999, everyone was publishing those "best ___ of the century". Mandsford 01:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You disagree with all of the afds I linked above? I'm not sure where you found the idea that lists aren't copyvios tbh. Could you clue me in? Quadzilla99 (talk) 05:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was disagreeing with the idea that a Wikipedia article would remove a lot of the incentive to buy a book. Perhaps you're responding to one of the other comments above. Mandsford 13:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Whether to keep this article or not depends on the notability of the list (or of the book in which the list is contained), not on whether it's a copyvio in its current state. If the list is notable, then the article could be rewritten to describe the origins of the list, summarize some of the highlights, mention some of the sources that show its notability, and provide a link to a permitted copy of the list if available. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:17, 15 November 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.