Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2038 in public ___domain

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 2030-2034, no consensus on 2035, delete 2036-2038‎. WP:CRYSTAL is often brought up in AfDs about articles that deal with future events, from scheduled elections to future solar eclipses. However, WP:CRYSTAL specifically deals with unverifiable speculation. While copyright laws are indeed evolving, the nominated pages deal with the laws as they are in place today, which suggests that WP:CRYSTAL is inapplicable here. That said, I see a consensus here that the pages relating to 2036 and beyond have no encyclopedic value today, and might not have any value for years to come, making a six-month draftification pointless.

Since the page for 2039 was not included in the nomination, it is outside the scope of this close. Feel free to nominate it separately, linking to this AfD and pinging its participants. Owen× ☎ 20:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2038 in public ___domain

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The year 2038 in public ___domain doesn't seem to have received the required attention to make this a notable topic, and we have no idea at all whether the current laws regulating what will be public ___domain in 2038 will be the same by then anyway, making this a WP:CRYSTAL violation. Fram (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This DOES NOT make them a WP:Crystal violation at all an is based on actual current state of copyright law in the US and other countries.

If that's true, then we woud have to remove all pages except for 2025 and before, please unnomiamte these for deletion ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (2030), weak keep (2031-2034) - for the same reasons as Foxtrot620. There's a very good case for keeping these lists five years in the future, and they are used (e.g. by wikisource and others for planning what to digitise). The case is less strong further out, and personally I wouldn't be bothering to work on something more than ten years out. If future articles seem incomplete, the answer is to do the work required to complete them (which will mostly be the +50 and US sections, since those bits are actually novel), rather than delete them. IdiotSavant (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i agree with IdiotSavant. These pages are me and my friend Seths' hard work and just deleiting it is just stupid.. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not really an argument. —Tamfang (talk) 22:41, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep For the same reasons stated above. These will eventually be relevant and some clear work has gone into them. There is no WP:Crystal violation that I can see. We know there will be IP entering the public ___domain in 2038. Dflovett (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For basically the same reasons, I also nominated the following ones for deletion:

Weak Delete (2035-37), Weak Keep (2031-2034), Strong Keep (2030): So, my logic here is entirely built in time frame. 35-37 is too far in the future for any kind of certainty; as such is a clear issue of WP:CRYSTAL. For 31-34, and 30, my argument is essentially the same, though the level I am willing to die on the hill is different. Given 2030 is five years in the future, I think that is more than qualifies as both almost certain to happen, and notable, as per the WP:CRYSTAL exceptions; short of some major new international copyright treaty, or some major move for copyright law change in a major country; nothing will change between now and then. For 31-34, I would argue the same, though the time frame grants more uncertainty. 35-37 is ten or more years in the future, and I think it's outside of the realm of Wikipedia. Personally, ten years seems to be a good standard for me, but I would also support a five year policy for this sort of thing. Then again, the U.S. Senate could introduce Sonny Bono Act II tomorrow and next years list could suddenly require major changes, so, I think we have to be okay with a certain amount of uncertainty in these articles. Foxtrot620 (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete these pages.. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think deleting the pages would be a good thing at all, and also i doubt any extentsion will ever happen, likely neer will. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the pages for 2030–2034, draftify those for 2035–2037 to be restored to mainspace later, and speedy delete 2038's page, as well as the following year's page 2039 in public ___domain, outright. This project has just gone too far out of scope. – SethAllen623 (talk), 01:04, June 26, 2025 (UTC).

Can anyone indicate why e.g. 2032 in public ___domain is at the moment a notable subject? Which reliable sources have dealt with this specifically? Fram (talk) 07:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable Sources is duke university and other websites.. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be slightly more specific? I checked the 2038 and the 2030 page, and neither seems to use anything from Duke as a reference. The pages all have generic references about public ___domain and expiry, but nothing about these years. Fram (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of notability and reliable sources is no different with these articles than with the articles for 2026, 2027, 2028, and 2029. Reliable sources may not exist now, but we know they will come in the future. Here is who we know will discuss these topics at the appropriate time: Duke University School of Law (which publishes articles for "Public Domain Day" on an annual basis) for general entrants to the U.S. public ___domain, The Daily Cartoonist (specifically for entrants relating to animation and comics), and at least one law library. Additionally, for years that will see very notable works enter the U.S. public ___domain, we may see one or two news articles discuss the entry of these works specifically. As for the international PD entrants, we have had no sourcing issues with them in the past in any of our "public ___domain by year" articles – neither those for the 2020s, nor 2019's page, nor those for the years before the moratorium on U.S. public ___domain entrants imposed by the Copyright Term Extension Act expired. If we did, then you would be nominating the entire category and all the pages in it for deletion. – SethAllen623 (talk), 17:32, June 26, 2025 (UTC).
We don´t create articles where the sources will be available in 5, 10, 15 years. If it isn´t of interest to reliable sources now or before now, we shouldn´t have an article on them. That´s a principle throughout enwiki, why would we make an exception for these? Fram (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bruh, please do not delete the pages. We worked so hard on them and they are allowed and do not violate WP: Crystal.

so please unnominate these for deletion ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the next 10 years (2026-2035) but delete beyond that (2036-2038) as too much conjecture. Bearian (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2026-2029 aren't part of the nomination Geschichte (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think all these articles should be kept because they provide an idea for artists and others to be able to plan for the use of specific artworks in advance, even if tentatively. The current articles are about what are believed to be entering the public ___domain given the current law. A note at the top of the article stating that laws/regulations are subject to change would be appropriate way of dealing with the potential ambiguity. GrassHopHer (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:18, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This is a case of WP:CRYSTAL. Knox490 (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Echoing Bearian, the next 10 years in articles seems prudent but anything past 2036 seems excessive due to the evolving nature of copyright reform. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the two of you want 2036 in public ___domain and the three articles for later years deleted, you have my support. After all, it is certain to me that those particular pages will not survive this discussion. -- Seth Allen (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just rather focus on the quality over quantity. Depending on the final outcome, a lot of these entries should probably be re-examined for that reason alone. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For 2030–2035: Keep. Per all previous "keep" votes above; also, these articles should be usable by contributors to Wikimedia Commons, Wikisource, and Wikiquote when planning ahead of time for what will be permissible to introduce into these sites in the next 10 years, as well as by Wikipedians when discerning what poems or song lyrics to rule as "copyright expired" in the next decade. The leads for these pages currently state, in keeping with the comment given by GrassHopHer above, that they are based on the current laws/regulations and that these are subject to change.
For 2036–2038: Delete. These articles are in violation of WP:CRYSTAL, and it will be a long time before these topics will be considered notable. Also applies to 2039 in public ___domain, which is not part of this discussion; that article should additionally be speedy deleted. --SethAllen623 (talk) 18:16, July 7, 2025 (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.