Talk:Financial Review Fast Starters
Add topic | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
I'm in the middle of collecting information for this page about BRW's Fast Starters list - an annual list compiled by BRW. Magazine of Australian businesses that have shown phenomenal growth. A "speedy deletion" message showed after one particular edit - I'm not sure if it's because the page references haven't been added yet? Lilyquinlan (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Contested deletion
[edit]This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here) --Lilyquinlan (talk) 05:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
This page is about the BRW's Fast Starters list, which ranks 100 top-performing Australian businesses. It is currently being uploaded.Lilyquinlan (talk) 05:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Copyright status of the list
[edit]Hi. Another contributor tagged the list with concerns of copy-pasting. I can understand these concerns; it's difficult to assess the copyright status of the list without knowing more about it. In assessing the copyright status, we need to consider whether (1) the selection of items itself is creative, or (2) the organization of items is creative. Is the ranking of companies on this list a clear and uncreative formula balancing factors that anyone would consider in creating such a ranking? If so, then the selection of items may not be creative. In that case, we would be able to reinstate at least the simple list. Before reinstating the complete list, we'd need to consider (2). Does this list contain any creativity in display of elements, or, perhaps, language describing the companies? It's hard to say if this is even a direct copy, given that the officially published list is hidden behind a paywall. Given the expressed concerns about it, I've removed it pending more information. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)