Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mending Wall

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 of the debate was Keep - extraordinarily well-known poem, taught in US literature classes for generations. Xoloz 16:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mending Wall

Transwiki to Wikisource, then remove the poem from the article. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The poem is already on Wikisource, so transwiki-ing is obviously unnecessary. Otherwise, the poem isn't popular enough (and the criticism isn't sufficiently well-written or important) to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. I'd suggest just getting rid of the whole thing. -- Kicking222 00:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep subject to removal of the actual poem from the article. The poem popularized (or originated?) the phrase "Good fences make good neighbors" which gets 137,000 Google hits. It's a very well-known poem. --Metropolitan90 05:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete there is no need for a serparate article just for the phrase. It can be a sub section about the poet. Notability questions. Copyvio. Robertsteadman 05:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I would like to see the copyright issues straightened out. Wikipedia:Public domain states quite clearly that everything written prior to January 1, 1923 is in the public domain; if that page is incorrect, we need to know about it. (The rule of 70 years + life of author appears to have come into effect starting with publications in 1978, from what I can read of the copyright code.) In fact, the poem is already on WikiSource in its entirety, so apparently someone there believes it is not under copyright. -- SCZenz 07:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  That WP Public Domain policy is wrong - copyrigth remains for 70 years after teh death of an author or composer. If someone wrote something in 1900 aged 10, then lived to see in their 100th birthday then died, Copyright wouldn't expire until 2060. Yes, it is slightly different in some countries but most have the same rules.Robertsteadman 06:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  You've said this before, but I wish you'd do something other than argue about it in relationship to this one article. Do you have the source for this? Have you considered fixing Wikipedia:Public domain...? -- SCZenz 07:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  It is the only article I have come across where it has been a major issue (thankfully now corrected) - yes I will consider correcting the WP policy - the problem there comes from the complex nature of that article that doesn't make it clear that artistic works are different from, say, recordings. Robertsteadman 08:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  As was pointed out on Talk:Mending Wall today, Project Gutenburg has this poem and they also claim it's in the public domain. -- SCZenz 20:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  By US law, anything published before 1923 is in the public domain, without regard to the life of the author. The poem in question was published in 1914 in the USA. It is indeed public domain. Smerdis of Tlön 13:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. I suspect that prior opinions may be about a different article; only excerpts are there now, and those excerpts are surely fair use. AAR, this is a canonical poem in the USA, and at least as worthy of an article as aught else in Category:Poems or its subcategories. Smerdis of Tlön 14:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• NB. The page has been hugely altered since the AfD was put up but, to my mind, still doesn't warrant a separate article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertsteadman (talk • contribs)
• Keep as a good article stub to reference when people come looking for "Good fences...", like I was earlier today. -- nae'blis _(talk) 20:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Do please read this from WP. I am not convinced that the poem is public domain - I think the WP public domain policy is being misinterprted. Robertsteadman 14:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• And this is the act itself. Robertsteadman 14:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The article seems to state quite clearly that all works published prior to 1923 remain in the public domain. What makes you think otherwise? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • No it doesn't - it refers to works which have come out of copyright from prior to 1923 - Frost died in 1963 - this poem (and ALL his other works) do not come out of copyright until 2033 - 70 years after his death. Robertsteadman 15:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
      • The article on the Sonny Bono act says that it freezes the public domain at the date of 1923. This poem was published in 1914. Its public domain status was not affected by extension, because it was already in the public domain when the act became law, and the act does not retroactively revive expired copyrights. Smerdis of Tlön 15:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I see no reason to delete this. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:17, 13 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.