Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ring Magazine's list of 100 greatest punchers of all time
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. (X! · talk) · @033 · 23:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Ring Magazine's list of 100 greatest punchers of all time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Twice deleted article that is a blatant copyright violation. CarbonX (talk) 01:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is a blatant copyvio, then it is WP:CSD#G12. DoubleBlue (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable lists. I suggest including Ring Magazine's list of the 80 Best Fighters of the Last 80 Years for the same reason. TJ Spyke 04:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- COmment Probably worth mentioning the highlights in the boxing article if not already included there. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge All the see also articles into one about RIng magazine. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article has to rely entirely on copyrighted material. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Although this is of interest, Ring Magazine's website doesn't seem to provide any link to its 2003 list, so I can't say that this would be authorized use. At the moment, it's the classic indiscriminate list, with no information about the boxers listed (other than their ranking). Mandsford (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- UNSURE....Since i created the article I guess I should put my two cents in to this conversation. I created the article because I thought it was a cool list and interesting. I am really not an expert on copyrights and what belongs and doesn't so Im not sure if it should stay or not. I will say that there are some other similar articles from ring magazine and many similar related to other sports/subjects. Garkeith (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Not sure lists of names can be copyrighted ⟳ausa کui × 01:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why couldn't the list be copyrighted? It is their list, compiled by their writers and published in their magazine (which is copyrighted). Even the title tells us the list belongs to Ring Magazine. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. It is a pretty subjective list created by the writers of Ring Magazine making it a creative work and subject to copyright. DoubleBlue (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why couldn't the list be copyrighted? It is their list, compiled by their writers and published in their magazine (which is copyrighted). Even the title tells us the list belongs to Ring Magazine. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2009 (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.