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. This AfD is interesting in that it turns on an actual point of law instead of Wikipedia policy. The question is whether this list is a derivative work of the titular selection of jazz albums, and therefore a violation of its copyright. Five people affirm and three deny this (albeit one weakly). Lacking a clear numerical consensus, I must weigh the relative strength of argument. Most "delete" opinions reflect a serious and reasonably thorough examination of the material at issue and of the applicable U.S. law, and from my reading of the cited case law (disclaimer: I'm not a U.S. lawyer) their argument appears prima facie sensible to me. On the other hand, the "keep" opinions mostly do not really address the legal issues raised by this discussion, namely, whether (as discussed in the cited Key Publications case), the source work is an original selection of data (and therefore copyrighted), and whether our article exhibits "substantial similarity between those elements ... that provide copyrightability to the allegedly infringed compilation". The arguments by Franamax and Moonriddengirl make a reasonably convincing case that this is so, and the "keep" opinions mostly do not address the points the "delete" opinions raise. On that basis, I find that there is a consensus, considered in the light of the strength of argument, to delete the article. Sandstein 20:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Core Collection albums in The Penguin Guide to Jazz[edit]

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

Copyright violation, per http://openjurist.org/945/f2d/509/key-publications-inc-v-chinatown-today-publishing-enterprises-inc, as explained in User:Moonriddengirl/Copyright in lists. This list is not a simple recitation of facts: it is a reproduction of a creative work (due to the value judgment and creativity that went in to the selection process), and violates the copyright of the source work. —Kww(talk) 01:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio. Carrite (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* WP:JAZZ notified. AllyD (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Would it make any difference that the Penguin Guide never presented this information in a list? I constructed the list myself; the Penguin Guide flags certain reviews as "Core Collection", but does not list (or otherwise index) which albums are "Core Collection". I hate to say this, but I am afraid this could also affect List of Crown albums in The Penguin Guide to Jazz (unless that is a different case, for some reason). In the words of Lisa Simpson, "All my efforts!" -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And some questions, is this very different from lists of Grammy winners, or Oscar winners, or categories based on those? (I'm not trying to be WP:WAXy.) If it's possible to mention in any number of articles that "The Penguin Guide included Album X in its Core Collection…", is it possible to categorize articles on that basis? If so, is it possible to derive a list (like this one) from that as well? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the reasons I took this to AFD, rather than doing a speedy delete as encouraged above (and by Franamax, as well). It's clear to me that if Penguin created a single publication called "The List of Crown Albums" and this article reproduced it, we would be infringing. It's also clear to me that if Penguin sponsored an awards show, we would be free to report the results. This list lies somewhere in-between, and I'm not 100% certain how to handle it.—Kww(talk) 12:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the explanation. (You mentioned "Franamax" and I think you meant their comments over at WT:CP#List copyright issues.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This and the other list that Gyrofrog has highlighted both proved useful a couple of years ago in putting WP:JAZZ Importance ratings onto articles, including those for the Wikipedia 1.0 Release. However it does look like the "Copyright in lists" argument takes precedence. AllyD (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, Gyro, Kww meant that comment. I could only get snippet views, so I couldn't see the actual "Core Collection" section in the book(s). I think the problem here is that Penguin has set out to make the Core Collection a significant feature of their book, i.e. one reason to buy it. By reproducing the list here, we take away the value of their work, which I think is one of the main considerations in copyright law. Now it's an interesting twist that there is apparently no columnar list in the books themselves, so the question would be whether or not you have sufficently transformed the work into a new creative expression. You've consolidated 3 editions and added the notes (all sourced from the same copyrighted work) - is that transformative? Me, I don't think so - but given what you've said I'll retract my talk of a speedy delete, but leaning toward a regular delete. And side note, I think the difference with the Oscars and Grammys is that they are published and televised awards, where the intent is to communicate the entire list to the public for free and wide dissemination - for pretty blatantly commercial purposes unrelated to the content of the actual lists themselves. Franamax (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some interesting and valid comments here, and I appreciate that this is not a simple subject. Though I agree with Franamax's assertion that we should not detract from the value of the author/publisher's work, I'm not convinced that Penguin have set out to make this a "significant feature of their book", hence a "reason to buy it", as the books contain so much more than just the Core Collection ratings. It has already been noted that books themselves contain no "Core Collection section", nor any index or list making it easy to reference the various albums awarded this rating - it should also be pointed out that the "Core Collection" differs slightly across the various editions available. In the light of these points, and taking into account the fact that this list has been consolidated from various editions of the book, I am leaning towards a weak keep. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 09:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, given my earlier comments but also in light of Sparklism's comments and Kww's explanation. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, definitely now that I've examined an analogue of the source work, as a copyright violation, with a further argument to delete on notability grounds. I had a look at the 7th Edition (2004) of the same guide and it is apparent to me that the "core collection" is intended as a significant feature of the work. The second section of the Introduction discusses the Core Collection, after Evaluation but before Recording Quality, Layout of Text, etc. The entries (approx. 200) selected for this designation have a "Core Collection" banner before the entry itself, and a bolded paragraph of text just below explaining why the particular musical work is considered "essential listening", before the actual guide entry. Great effort and creativity has gone into these selections (obviously this is subjective stuff, not some mechanical method of selection) and for us to simply reproduce the selections here appropriates this valuable portion of the overall work. Nothing of transformative value has been added in the Wikipedia article, this is a pure mechanical reproduction of the original work, compiled by leafing through the pages in consecutive order. On the notability issue, while I can find many references to the list, they seem to be either within book reviews of the guides themselves (usually as a valuable feature and a reason to buy the work); mentions that individual works are in the list when discussing those works; and reproductions of the list itself, including, unfortunately, multiple mirrors of this article. I can find no critical commentary on the list itself, which is one of our core notability requirements. However this deficiency pales in comparison to the copyright concerns. I have not evaluated the 9th Edition (not available to me 'til at least 17 Mar), but I have no reason to think my conclusions would change, so yeah, I'm saying delete, with regret for wasting the efforts of the editor who spent all the time putting this list article together. Franamax (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, On pure copyvio grounds there is probably a case for deletion but as a regular contributor to WP:albums and WP:Jazz I have found this article invaluable to adding significant jazz albums to Wikipedia and noting their "Core Collection" status in the Reception section. I don't have all the Penguin Guide Editions and scanning through this massive tome for core collection albums is a difficult task (but making my life easier is no reason for copyvio). If the decision is to delete, then the List of Crown albums in The Penguin Guide to Jazz should also suffer the same fate for the same reasons. I hope there is still some time left for me to add in articles on the missing significant recordings that the "Core Collection" highlights and a Category for "Penguin Guide to Jazz core albums" which will create a (albeit incomplete) list but without references.DISEman (talk) 06:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can copy the wikitext right now onto your own PC and preview it in an edit pane for the rest of your (or en:wiki's) life, so the existence of this particular page is not material. The Crown albums list, having looked at it recently, yes, should have the same scrutiny. As far as using a category instead, I've watched the interplay between categories and list articles over a period of years (often, if it's a category, it deserves a list article and vice versa) and at this point I have to say I would view such a category in much the same light as I do this list. In either case, it seems to me that we are doing an end-run around all the effort expended by the authors and giving people a handy way to avoid buying the creative work. But that's not our goal here, we're meant to collect and summarize the work of others, not simply regurgitate what others have already done. I'll grant that the category question is trickier, but the principles are the same. Franamax (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: As we shouldn't rush this through, copyright is too important for that. I also left a note on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 March 13, so I expect some more input will be following. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful delete. I am very much afraid that this list is likely to constitute a derivative work. :/ What a reference considers "core" is extremely creative, and even though this doesn't reproduce an actual list from the book, it seems to me that transforming their work into a list could easily be "a work based upon one or more pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted".17 U.S.C. § 101 No matter how we shake it, this isn't fact, but opinion. If this were listed at CP, I would delete the list, with true regret, on that basis. That said, if this list is deleted; I don't think it would be a copyright issue at all to list the redlinks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of notable albums. Listing only the redlinks there would not be competitive in any way, but highly transformative use. A high proportion of the articles I've written came off of that list. It was nice to see it finished, but the purpose of the list wasn't to complete it, it was to help add essential content. :) If there's newly identified essential content missing, it should be spun up again. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've ported the redlinks over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of notable albums. Gyrofrog , you did a lot of hard work on this! Whatever happens with the article, the list of notable albums should help increase our coverage of jazz albums on Wikipedia. I'll start working on those, if I can, this weekend. I haven't written a jazz album article on a long time. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the same for the redlinks at List of Crown albums in The Penguin Guide to Jazz (which, presumably, will meet the same fate). Note that there is quite a bit of overlap: I didn't bother to remove duplicates (should I remove them from the "Core" list, or the "Crown" list?), but the "Notes" column already mentions if/when an album is in both lists. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A list of the contents of a book is not a copyvio of the book. This is especially the case when the list itself is never presented as s such in the book, but is --we're not copying the intellectual material in any sense at all, just describing it. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given the advice received from foundation counsel about copyright in lists I don't think there is any other choice. Although I have sympathy with DGG's position I don't think it is compatible with that advice. I suspect that the advice is deliberately conservative and courts might decide differently, and nearer DGGs position, in future however we, as a community, are not, for very understandable reasons, in the business of developing case law by testing cases like this and so we must err on the side of caution. Dpmuk (talk) 04:50, 21 March 2012 (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.