Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Greatest Cartoons

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 100 Greatest Cartoons

Delete. Most probably fictitious. This is just like how misinformation can spread like about the singer Engelbert Humperdinck and the fictitious composer Viraldini. Marcus2 19:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Fictitious? It has an external link on the page, read it. Xezbeth 19:09, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • I know that something must have been made up. It can't be possible for all 100 of the cartoons, clips from the show, and celebrities to be all on a 245-minute program. Marcus2 19:17, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • As someone who watched the whole thing, I can confirm that it isn't made up. Channel 4 have done loads of these programs, and they always manage to fit everything in. This particular one had way too many comedians commenting on programs they clearly knew nothing about. Xezbeth 19:20, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• keep per Xezbeth. Kappa 20:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - the title is inherently POV. Firebug 21:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • So we can't have articles on TV shows with POV titles? Kappa 21:51, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, there goes Everybody Loves Raymond, for one. android↔talk 22:38, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • I think the title has the potential to be misleading. Maybe if it was moved to 100 Greatest Cartoons (Channel 4 poll) it would be acceptable. Firebug 22:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Except it's not just a poll; it's the name of the documentary. Besides, Channel 4 is too regional – around here, that's the CBS affiliate. Adding something like (documentary) only makes sense, IMO, when it would need to be disambiguated. android↔talk 23:06, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh noes, we must delete Best Week Ever because it may have just been a middling week. Mike H 03:25, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Article about real TV special. This is simply too big to merge into, say, Cartoon, and I'm not sure it would fit well there or anywhere else, for that matter. android↔talk 22:38, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The insinuation that this is "fictitious" is ludicrous. It even has an IMDB entry! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:39, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This list is the intellectual property of the people who conducted the poll, and is therefore a copyright violation. We have deleted previous such compilations in the past as copyright violations. The discussion should be moved to the Copyright problems page, to which I shall be linking the article. RickK 00:38, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • There's more to the article than just the list (though without the list, I should think it better merged somewhere); why did you excise more than the list? android↔talk 00:51, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • A list of names of cartoons is not a copyright violation. You have to be joking. If a book published a newly-compiled list of names of victims from a disaster, you'd actually claim that the list of peoples' names is copyrighted??? --brian0918™ 03:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • A list of anything which has been voted on as "the best" or "the greatest" or "the whatever" by the readers or watchers or editors or whatever of a particular entity is their intellectual property and is therefore copyrighted. A simple List of cartoons would not be copyrighted, so long as there was no link to Channel 4. RickK 19:51, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • Let's say a telephone company compiles a list of its subscribers, and provides the subscribers with a phone book with all their names listed in it. Would you consider that list copyrighted? The U.S. Supreme Court doesn't. Facts can't be copyrighted. It is a fact that The Simpsons came in at #1 on their list, and that Aladdin came in at #17, just as it is a fact that Joe Schmoe was a subscriber to Rural Phone Company and that his phone number was X. --brian0918™ 00:59, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Also, a list of names of cartoons is not a copyright violation. --brian0918™ 03:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I seriously question whether or not a list is copyright. Burgundavia 03:33, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep because it's coverage of a documentary. Whether the list itself is a copyvio, I don't know. In the U.S., bodies of facts when compiled a certain way are in fact defensible (for example, CDDB). In any case, the article should stay, with or without the list. Demi ^T/_C 03:46, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
• NO VOTE because I'm undecided, no wait, that's not it, because this is obviously a highly watched television special about a popular subject matter which offers a trove of interesting and informative information about the history and popularity of cartoons. Perhaps 'No vote' because this is, without a doubt, the most inane example of an attempt to trim any wikipedia content that wouldn't make it into a print version. GIVE UP ALREADY. Read my post on the village pump for a less ranting and more academic look at the problem. Regards and clue-by-four swatting in all necessary directions - especially for red-herring planters, nsh 03:58, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, may I refer to 100 Greatest Britons? I think an article on this is as just as valid, and I don't think the list can be copyrighted. Sjakkalle 07:34, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I looked at Demi's comment, and perhaps I was a little hasty in declaring that a list cannot be copyrighted, it will need to be investigated. But still keep. 07:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at point 2 on C4's "Terms and Conditions" page. [1]. What do you read into it? Can a ranking be coyrighted, or are the presence of all those wikilinks on our list enough to avoid running afoul of copyrights? Sjakkalle 07:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I think it a list like this could be copyrighted as an "original selection and arrangement" of facts, especially if there were a lot of them, like weekly Billboard charts. But in this case, I think it's fair use, as the list is a small part of the program, and anyone seeing this list is going to be more likely to want to watch it. Channel 4 puts the results on their website [2], so internet surfers aren't going to be watching the program just to find out the results. Kappa 08:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Is there any problem with Channel 4 being British, while the "fair use" rule is in the U.S. law? Sjakkalle 09:02, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Probably not while it is being hosted in the US. Burgundavia 13:27, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, POV, trivial. Abstain. Megan1967 10:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  Did you even read what this is about? "100 Greatest Cartoons" is the name of the documentary. --brian0918™ 11:32, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: No Copyvio. You can copyright a piece of art or an article, you cannot copyright the facts. A list does not involve more than mere facts. With this argument no one could critisize scientific researchers because they could not cite them. Makes no sense to me. --Mononoke 12:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: how do you report the result of a poll without actually displaying the result? --Phil | Talk 16:31, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: This is a genuine documentary; the article has the same name as the programme; there are many similar 'top 100 poll' articles on Wikipedia, and if stating the result is a copyright violation, then that surely calls lots of source material used throughout Wikipedia into question. (Yes, I am the article starter). --Vodex 19:26, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep its a notable TV program. I don't think that its a copyvio as the complete lists of the results of these sorts of polls are often published in newspapers and have been since the start of C4s obsession with these sorts of list programs in the late 1990s - if C4 wanted to enforce any copyright they had on the lists they'd have done it by now. Anyway, if we can't quote results of polls then we'll have to trim our articles on elections, the Eurovision Song Contest, referenda, etc. Thryduulf 09:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I see nothing wrong with this article, if the material is truely copyrighted however, than that changes my opinion
• Comment We were through a similar debate on copyrights on a vfd-debate for 100 Worst Britons, another Channel 4 series. The debate is on that user's talkpage. That is just for your information, I will draw no conclusions... Sjakkalle 07:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.