Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes (2nd nomination)

Even though I had to strike two late "delete" votes, the consensus is pretty clear. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes
Sorry, but this is probably as clear an example of a compilation copyright as could be made. AFI has selected and ordered the quotes, and AFI owns the list as presented. Note, however, that there is nothing wrong with mentioning the AFI designation where these quotes are found on the pages for the individual films. — BD2412 T 06:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Vote closes : 07:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Vote extended to 07:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC). Copyvio is a serious problem, and this is potentially a very bad example. This matter has supposedly been addressed by an OTRS ticket (2007041310002766), but I have seen no public statement about how that ticket resolves the issue. We need clear, specific data on this matter, and I hope another week will allow us to get it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. - InvisibleSun 08:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete copyright--McNoddy 08:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Ubiquity 09:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have changed this discussion title to include a "(2nd nomination)" suffix, as this article had already been nominated and kept (as its discussion page indicates). Please see Votes for deletion archive/AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes for the previous discussion. (It should have been at the unsuffixed title, but I must have missed it while converting the old discussions to the new structure. I'll have to review the old stuff to make sure we don't have this problem again.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Obviously a copyvio. Shouldn't it be blanked?--Cato 21:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, we don't have to blank it unless the AFI asks us to do so. Preemptive deletion after our regular process should suffice. I've raised the issue on the corresponding Wikipedia article as well. BD2412 T 21:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, but of course all these quotes should be in the relevant articles.--Yehudi 17:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - JeffQ's arguments for keeping it last time seem entirely valid this time as well. And if the list, compiled by public polling, is not considered copyright violation in the long standing Wikipedia article "AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movie Quotes", it should be safely presentable here also. ~ Kalki 19:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am skeptical, to say the least. The Wikipedia usage (which I have now challenged as well) is at least a transformative use, as the quotes are put in the larger context of much additional information. BD2412 T 20:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have consulted with someone more expert than myself, and he points out that the quotes were not selected by AFI, but (as the 'pedia article indicates), by a jury of "1,500 film artists, critics, and historians". As such, my copyright fears are somewhat allayed. I have now come to the conclusion that unless we are formally asked to remove this, it should stay, and I will withdraw this nomination (if no one objects). Cheers! BD2412 T 12:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - Generally speaking, I like the page, personally. But, I see how it poses a systematic copyright violation, what with its duplication in entirety. But that's exactly what it's intended for, so I'm for the delete when it comes to following the standards, regardless of my own personal liking of the page. - Zarbon 05:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure whether it constitutes a violation or not (and I'm a copyright lawyer!) Higher-ups have explained to me that it does not, because the list was compiled by a jury poll, but I'd like to know exactly how that jury poll was conducted. BD2412 T 05:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * BD2412, I see that you withdrew your concern at Copyright problems/2008 April 2/Articles, but I don't see that we have anything more than the info we had the last time. I think we should demand details about the poll. If the OTRS ticket shows that the poll is separate from the AFI program, and that it is not subject to copyright restrictions, then that info should be made public to serve as both a clear rationale for keeping and an example for other situations. Can anyone figure out how we can extract the details of the OTRS ticket? (I still don't fully understand the relationship between OTRS and Wikimedia projects. People seem to consider the mention of an OTRS ticket as an answer in itself, which strikes me as even more obscure and less helpful than many of our checkuser reports. Surely anything uncovered in this one should be stated somewhere relevant within Wikiquote and Wikipedia.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. The OTRS ticket is unhelpful and opaque. I am inclined to think that if AFI put together a collection of a few hundred quotes and asked the panel to rank the top hundred, then this would still be dubious under copyright (possibly as a derivative work). However, if AFI merely picked the panelists and told them to come up with whatever they felt like were great quotes, that would fall beyond any protection. BD2412 T 11:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. My argument hasn't changed since the previous nomination. --Aphaia 17:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In retrospect, we report quotes; we don't need to report other people's opinions on those quotes, which is what this list is, so as long as we have the quotes in the movie articles, why have this list? BD2412 T 17:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete ensuring that we have all these quotes elsewhere, per Yehudi and BD2412.-- Poetlister 12:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Extremly weak keep -- Lord Wilkes 04:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, although these quotes are worthwhile, if this list isn't...Modernist 20:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Struck because it came after the extended deadline, with no further extension requested or made. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete . I've gone back and forth on the issue, but I suppose in the end, as long as the quotes are on their film's page, then we don't really need this page. ~ UDScott 20:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Struck because it came after the extended deadline, with no further extension requested or made. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)