Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copyright status of work by U.S. state governments

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. (non-admin closure) czar · · 03:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status of work by U.S. state governments

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

As noted on talk. Let's discuss whether the split off from Copyright_status_of_work_by_the_U.S._government is appropriate or should be reversed by deleting this offshoot. Elvey (talk) 02:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Copyright laws regarding work created by U.S. state government agencies are significantly different than laws covering works created by the U.S. federal government. In my view, this is a notable and different topic worthy of a separate article. If someone was willing to do the work, 50 separate articles might be good to have. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This wasnt really a split. I copied a section from Copyright status of work by the U.S. government as the first edit because it was relevant, and I wanted to ensure the history of that text could be traced back. I then removed the specifics from the main article, as they dont belong there, and started the table of U.S. state laws. The U.S. federal laws are very different, esp. with regard to works of the government. We already had a dedicated article about Copyright status of work by the Florida government, and I hope/expect we'll eventually have articles about each U.S. state jurisdiction. In the meantime, this article is a reasonable place to put the most pertinent aspects of any U.S. state jurisdictions, and to compare them easily. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this AFD is a good-faith query that was launched during a move request at Talk:Copyright_status_of_work_by_U.S._state_governments#Move_proposal/request, and there is more discussion about this at Talk:Copyright_status_of_work_by_the_U.S._government#Works Made for Hire for the US state Governments etc. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, educational and encyclopedic, — Cirt (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable legal topic.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the talk page is the right place to be sorting this out. Thincat (talk) 23:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; This article should clearly not be merged to Copyright status of work by the U.S. government. That article is about the scope and limitation of the exclusion of works of the U.S. government from the subject matter of copyright under section 105 of the 1976 Copyright Act and its predecessors. That article has nothing to do with works of state governments, except to make clear that the § 105 exclusion does not apply to works of state, local or foreign governments. The inclusion of this material on state governments in that article stemmed from a misunderstanding of U.S. copyright, and not getting the distinction between a work not being subject to copyright (U.S. government works) and a work being subject to copyright but having its copyright disclaimed by its owner (some state governments actions with respect to certain of their own works).

I am, though, concerned that this article is almost entirely original research and lacking reliable sources. It has only a single reference to a secondary source. (It's a Wired article, discussing California, but that source uses the word "copyright" only once and does not clearly support the premise in the Wikipedia article; it seems to be much more of an open records law case than a copyright one.) All other content is the editors' original research and interpretations of and citations to the various state statutes as primary sources. But that's an argument as to content, not an argument on deletion. TJRC (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2013 (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.