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 procedural keep - AfD is not the place for this copyright discussion. Mike Peel (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

100 Women (BBC)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This is great information but it is also a model project and we need to have copyright in order. As described at Talk:100_Women_(BBC)#Is_it_not_a_copyright_violation_to_publish_this_list? this content is covered by copyright and seems ineligible for inclusion in Wikipedia. The most particular reason for deletion is conflict with Wikipedia:Copyright in lists. We should sort this - it is a model project for others to emulate, and it would be an error to leave this if we do not have copyright license to publish. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the nominator is confused as to what this is an article about. 100 Women is a TV program that aired on the BBC, so the sole question that would be relevant here is whether that program is notable, on which no question has been raised. Whether it happens to be a copyvio to list the 100 women featured in each series (and I doubt that) is not a question for this forum, as we would not delete the entire article to remedy that. The nominator points to a discussion on that issue from three years ago that did not reach a conclusion or consensus that there was a copyvio issue. postdlf (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no copyright in facts. The fact is that these are the 100 names selected as each year's "BBC 100 Women". If we had copied the descriptions word-for-word from the BBC site there might be a question about the copyright, but we have not (eg in 2019 Jasmin Akter: we say "Rohingya refugee and cricketer", BBC said "UK-Bangladesh cricketer"). And, as postdlf says, the question is not whether the article should be deleted (it's undoubtedly a notable TV series), but whether some of the content of the article should be deleted as copyright, so this should not be at AfD. PamD 17:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually UK copyright law, and others, recognise "compilation rights", and many lists are not allowed on WP. But this is not really an Afd issue, but to argue over at the article. Johnbod (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Afd rationale is flawed. This is article is about a BBC program, so is notable. If there was any copyright content within it, it would been removed long ago. I suggest close this as Snow Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs) 17:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The TV programme itself meets our notability criteria. However, publishing the full list of 100 names each year appears to be a copyright issue, and this has been discussed on the article talkpage, although that seems to have fizzled out almost three years ago. Perhaps that discussion could be revived. Edwardx (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep - AfD is not the place to hash out copyright issues. There's no dispute about the notability of the subject. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2019 (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.