Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public Domain Day
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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. In accordance with WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, discussion has been closed early to allow article to appear on Main page in DYK. At time of closure, discussion showed clear consensus and with the exception of pile-on votes the debate effectively ended 2½ days ago. --Allen3 talk 00:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Public Domain Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
More of an idea mentioned in the abstract and advocated as wishful thinking, than an actual holiday/event/celebration. No evidence of consistent observance. Article consists mostly of the advocacy information that the event is supposed to promote. –Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe evidence of consistent observance is related to notability. Feel free to NPOV the article more if you feel there is any advocacy, I don't believe there is much left, if any. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The entire article is advocacy. It consists of (in order): 1) material copied and and paraphrased from a web site created to promote it, 2) a lecture intended to explain why the event is important, 3) an arbitrary list of authors who died a little over 70 years ago, claiming vaguely that someone somewhere somehow "celebrated" these anniversaries, and 4) name-dropping a few one-time blog mentions and linking to unverified meet-up announcements, which we are meant to take as evidence that a significant number of people observe this as an actual event, and not just something some people would like others to get interested in. The extent to which the citations for this article keep going back to the idea's sponsors for "facts" about it, with sparse support from mostly one-off mentions by bloggers, demonstrates a lack of notability. Where are the third-party accounts of these gatherings? Where are the news (not commentary) articles about the day itself? Strip out the first-party sources, and the article collapses. While this is not a simple example of WP:MADEUP (it's a few steps past that), the advice on that page applies to the promoters of this idea. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a fact that all the mentions of this event come from pro-free culture POV. Again, feel free to NPOV the article if you think it is an issue, and if you find any more neutral sources, by all means, inform us of that, but any perceived POV is not an argument in a deletion debate. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 01:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The entire article is advocacy. It consists of (in order): 1) material copied and and paraphrased from a web site created to promote it, 2) a lecture intended to explain why the event is important, 3) an arbitrary list of authors who died a little over 70 years ago, claiming vaguely that someone somewhere somehow "celebrated" these anniversaries, and 4) name-dropping a few one-time blog mentions and linking to unverified meet-up announcements, which we are meant to take as evidence that a significant number of people observe this as an actual event, and not just something some people would like others to get interested in. The extent to which the citations for this article keep going back to the idea's sponsors for "facts" about it, with sparse support from mostly one-off mentions by bloggers, demonstrates a lack of notability. Where are the third-party accounts of these gatherings? Where are the news (not commentary) articles about the day itself? Strip out the first-party sources, and the article collapses. While this is not a simple example of WP:MADEUP (it's a few steps past that), the advice on that page applies to the promoters of this idea. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The event is mentioned in numerous sources, many of which seem quite reliable. There are even a few book mentions ([1], [2]). Few years ago this might have been some Internet trivia, but by now I feel it has generated enough sources to become notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Topic isn't just WP:MADEUP, and is mentioned in several sources, including a newsblog from The Telegraph, "Happy Public Domain Day! Here's to many more", Duke University's Center for the Study of the Public Domain, "Public Domain Day: January 1, 2011 — Waiting for Waiting for Godot . . ." and Project Gutenberg news, "January 1, 2011 will be Public Domain Day". The article is written neutrally, and doesn't advocate the day, and the tone is not promotional. The article would benefit from the addition of more reliable sources to it. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - reliable notable sources. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I don't know how many more references are needed for the article to be solid, but the celebrations (at least here in Poland) are organized each year from 2007 and was covered by mainstream media, so yes - it is the "actual holiday/event/celebration" (I just added a photo for illustrative purposes). kocio (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you add links to that mainstream media coverage? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 12:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course it's in polish, but there are some mentions: Rzeczpospolita (also here), Wirtualna Polska, Gazeta Wyborcza and this (pages seem to be defunct now, but are searchable through their website). Polish National Library also mentions it (it's one of the organizers of celebrations). kocio (talk) 12:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, and I didn't even realize there was a pl interwiki, ha! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 14:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course it's in polish, but there are some mentions: Rzeczpospolita (also here), Wirtualna Polska, Gazeta Wyborcza and this (pages seem to be defunct now, but are searchable through their website). Polish National Library also mentions it (it's one of the organizers of celebrations). kocio (talk) 12:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you add links to that mainstream media coverage? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 12:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Coverage has been found. Clicking on the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD shows results in various languages even. Well known in many nations. Dream Focus 14:51, 31 December 2011 (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.