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. per WP:SNOW, concerns about the scope of the article are better off for the talk page (non-admin closure) NW (Talk) (How am I doing?) 20:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of films in the public domain

List of films in the public domain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Listcruft, and further duplicates Category:Public domain films. KurtRaschke (talk) 01:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jmundo 01:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand the information given. A list can duplicate a category, and has the advantage of being able to provide addition information (director, featured actors, prizes, for example) This doesn't have such information now, but it can and should be added. The best general rule I think is that if there is a category of discrete objects, there should almost always be a list also. DGG (talk) 01:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons listed directly above, and additionally, while the article certainly has room for information and citations, I do not think it should be deleted just for that reason. Categories are not really sufficient aggregates of information and objects, as they cannot show additional information that would be very valuable to researchers. For instance, Ronald Reagan stars in many of these films, and that information does not appear on a category page. There is also precedent for film lists and related categories. For instance, there is a category for film serials, Category:Film serials, and there is also a List of film serials, and a List of film serials by studio JEN9841 (talk) 02:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per DDG - lists and categories can work hand-in-hand. Lugnuts (talk) 08:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Public domain - where (what jurisdiction) ? I have no objections to List of films in the public domain in the United States, but there is no blanket worldwide PD rule, nor do we have resources to verify it. NVO (talk) 13:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and per comment make sure its lede says "in the nation where it was first copyrighted." Thus obviating any concerns expressed. [1] "(1) This Convention shall apply to all works which, at the moment of its coming into force, have not yet fallen into the public domain in the country of origin through the expiry of the term of protection." is sufficiently clear that this would be sufficient. Collect (talk) 13:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because this has the potential to be more that a duplication of a category. Although that's all that this is for now, we have to remember that this list was just created yesterday. Except in cases of an inappropriate topic, I see no point in nominating an article soon after it's posted. I'm hoping that the author will add more information about the various films, many of which became quite famous because they were in the public domain and were frequently on TV. Mandsford (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand per above. The content can easily be verified. List was only created yesterday as Mandsford points out, and I agree with Collect's suggestion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 14:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with NVO above that it needs to be clearer about where the films are in the public domain, because at the moment it does seem like they are worldwide, and this may not be the case. It could stand to have verification that the films are in the public domain, too; Around the World in 80 Days (1988 film) for example is listed, but the article says it has a copyright holder. Possibly also it should be stated that a film can be in the public domain, but that doesn't mean that all editions of that film are. Possibly also additional info about the films should be on the page, such as the year released. Шизомби (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. Unless policy has changed with nobody telling me, lists and categories still aren't mutually exclusive. The above suggestions regarding the lead or a possible rename could be workable as well. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CLN guideline: "The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping."
    Lists, categories, and templates are not to be considered redundant to each other.
    --Tothwolf (talk) 19:36, 24 May 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.
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_films_in_the_public_domain
No tags for this post.