Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public domain film

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 keep. After the relist, it became pretty clear that there is consensus a) that this is a valid notable subject and b) that deletion is not the right way to handle this. Merging/redirecting/expanding can all be discussed on the talk page as needed but AFD is not for that. So Why 12:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain film

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

Slapdash gathering of random points with no clear focus. Largely redundant to Public domain, Copyright status of work by the U.S. government, and List of films in the public domain in the United States. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge - This is content that was merged from Category:Public domain films (now deleted). Per the policy WP:PRESERVE there should be a merge to Public domain film since that article has a "main article" sub-section. However it would be too big since that article is already very long. Public domain film concerns every country in the world, not just the USA, there needs to be a place to put these country-specific issues without creating separate articles for each country (until needed). Film copyright and PD in film is a complex topic with country-specific issues. The coverage currently is US-centric as there is overlap with other US focused articles. -- GreenC 02:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete As the nom says, this is just a bunch of random points about copyright law in general. Mangoe (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's some interesting details about It's a Wonderful Life in The Public Domain. Andrew D. (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: WP:USEFUL is not a valid argument, try again. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable subject that has been covered in numerous reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FloridaArmy: And saying that there are sources = adding them to the article right? If there are souces, WHERE THE FUCKING FUCK ARE THEY and why are they not in the article? Don't say there are sources unless you can fucking prove it yourself, mmkay? Otherwise, I could say there are sources out there on my own ass, and it could have a fucking article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are in the References section. –dlthewave ☎ 05:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. Significant topic, adequate sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep gives a world view not just the U.S, the references already in the article are adequate Atlantic306 (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The legal status of one of the most popular and significant art and entertainment forms of the modern age is notable however you slice it. Updating, cleanup and the possibility of a merger to public domain can be discussed elsewhere; that's not what AfD is for. XOR'easter (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nominating rationale is not a valid deletion reason, especially since the topic covers more than just US. Rlendog (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a legitimate topic. There is nothing wrong with a standalone article for specific types of media that are in the public domain (see also Public domain music). Content and references from articles about copyright protections in jurisdictions outside the U.S. (e.g. Copyright law of the European Union) can be used to expand this article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2018 (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.