Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 June 13

13 June 2006

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was endorse closure to keep. - brenneman  {L} 10:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Mending Wall
This discussion was finished rather buptly mid-debate. The problem is that many are misunderstanding the copyright law, confused by a badly worded WP policy. There is a differnece between the copyright on an imprint and the copyright on he content. This poem (which is substantially quoted from) remains within copyright until 70 years after teh death of teh author - it is only a particular imprint of it that can go out of copyright before that. The poem's inculsion on Wikisource and the large quote on WP break copyright. If the WP policy is wrong/badly worded it needs to be changed. WP and WS are currently breaking copyright - and I suspect on several other copyright pieces too. Robertsteadman 16:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I did close the debate a few hours early on three grounds: 1.) There was a consensus to keep, unlikely to change; 2.) the poem is extraordinarily well-known in the US, and is regularly taught in high-school English classes across the country (how do I know? Why, I come from a loooong line of English teachers from all across the country, really) 3.) As I explained to Mr. Steadman at his talk, his understanding of copyright law is incorrect (for which, see his talk page.)


 * If I wanted to, I could simply say that I ignored opinions known to be in error, and found the debate unanimous. Really, though, even taking Steadman's criticisms at their face-value, there was a consensus to keep -- the discussion to remove the poem's text is editorial, as it is already transwikied. Xoloz 16:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am afraid that your assertion about copyright is incorrect. Copyright on artistic works, in Europe and the US, last for 70 years after teh death oif the authjor and the date of publication is irrelvant. To have such a substantial quote from the poem, at best, stretchs the law and, in my opinion, is a breach of copyright. Certainly the wikisource full use is illegal. I'd love to see a citation for the "extremely well known"-nbess of the poem. One phrase may be well known - in which case the article should be about the phrase not the poem. The only reason the debate wasn't going to change is becaiuse (a) it wasn't given the chance to and (b) false informnation about the notability of the poem and the copyright situaton swayed people. A very sad state of affairs when WP admins are allowing WP to break the law. Robertsteadman 17:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Mr Steadman, you correctly state US law as it applies today to items published today. Historically, prior to a series of treaties throughout the 1980's, the US law did not give a whit for the author's lifetime.  All of this is recounted in full detail at the US Copyright Law article.  The newer laws now in force do not apply to Mending Wall, because by the time of their active date, its copyright had already lapsed under the old law.  It is unfortunate that you refuse to relent in falsing suggesting Wikipedia is a violating the law.  Discerning the copyright of works published in the US between 1923 and 1978 is a confusing process, by reason of the changing law, and occupies an entire course in modern American law school curriculum.  Prior to 1923, all published works in the US, by necessity of the operation of law in effect at the time, had their copyrights lapse prior to the enactment of current law.  Since my word, and the sources at the WP article, do not convince you, I suggest you take this matter up with Foundation lawyer User:Brad Patrick.  He will tell you what I have, in much better detail than I can (since intellectual property is not my area of daily practice): you are incorrect, and WP is within the law.  I respect your right to disagree, however wrong you are; but please refrain from suggesting that Wikipedia is breaking the law, for its counsel is very bright, and it is well within the law. Xoloz 18:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As for notability, the mere fact it is a Robert Frost poem justifies a stub's existence, but I can have references for you shortly.


 * Endorse closure. Take to copyright problems if you really think it's a problem, I accept the evidence above that it is not.  I am compelled to wonder once again if User:Robertsteadman and User:Robsteadman are related.  Just zis Guy you know? 20:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Endorse closure. If it was in fact published in 1914, there is no problem. See, among other sources, UPenn's guide here. By the way, was I the only one who thought of this poem when senator Jeff Sessions said, with regard to plans to build five hundred or so miles of Berlin-Wall-like fencing,"Good fences make good neighbors, fences don't make bad neighbors?" Ignoring, of course, the point that there's a difference between a co-operative fence maintained jointly by two neighbors and a unilateral fence... Unless I'm missing something, Mexico isn't offering to pay for half of this border fence. But I digress. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse closure. Even if User:Robertsteadman were correct in saying that the poem was still subject to copyright, we could just revert the article to a non-infringing version. And if the poem is in the public domain, we don't have a problem at all. --Metropolitan90 01:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The ever-amazing BD2412, who does IP for a living, quickly cited this source, a current US government circular, which plainly lays that issue to rest. Praise BD! Xoloz 06:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse: AfD and DRV are not the proper venues for changing Wikipedia's general understanding of copyright.  The poem is, of course, very well known and is, in fact, one of those poems that people who don't know poetry will have read (because they were forced to).  Now, don't ask me how I loathe Robert Frost, but don't ask me to want the article deleted because one person thinks the whole project's vision of copyright should yield to his own.  Geogre 12:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse closure. If we're all wrong about the copyright status of this poem, and Project Gutenberg is too, I think the only recourse Mr. Steadman has is to Foundation legal counsel, as Xoloz suggests.  Alleged non-notability is not a good reason to bring this article here; there were arguments made on both sides at the AfD, and there was no consensus to delete. I am very much hoping this is the last I see of this issue. -- SCZenz 12:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse - how on earth did anyone even consider deleting an article about what is by common knowledge one of the most famous modern poems in the English language? Metamagician3000 04:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You did read the copyright discussion, right? User:Zoe|(talk) 17:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes... did you? The copyright issue was a non-starter, unless you were willing to believe that Public domain was incorrect (which one user was).  Aside from that, we don't delete pages containing copyvio if we can just remove the copy vio. -- SCZenz 20:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not discussing the merits of the copyright issue, merely that there were concerns, and it was perfectly valid for anyone who has concerns to raise them, the attacks on them by Metamagician3000 and possibly yourself notwithstanding. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I did indeed read about the alleged copyright issue. That was not the point of my comment. I was addressing claims that the poem is not notable, or not known to be. I see no copyright issue that was relevant to AfD, since (1) it seems pretty clear that the material is in the public domain and (2) in any event that is a reason to edit the article, not to delete it. It's not like anyone was saying the whole article was a copyvio. However, people can raise whatever possible issues they want. I'm not attacking anyone or anything; I'm saying that this is obviously a notable poem which is at least as deserving of an article as the latest Marvel Comics supervillain or whatever. Metamagician3000 03:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.