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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 00:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Works based on a copyright-free Mickey Mouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I don't think this subject passes WP:LISTN. Having a list of works featuring Mickey Mouse, but only versions of him adapted after 1 January 2024 is just very oddly specific. Every single entry on this list could easily be put into List of Mickey Mouse films and appearances. Di (they-them) (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, Video games, Disney, and Lists. Di (they-them) (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Uncertain on its notability, but I don't see its timeframe or scope as "oddly specific". The date isn't arbitrary. As its title suggests, it's when the copyright ran out so people could use/recreate without potential repercussion. It's a logical classification. I also oppose the merge suggestion. That would be comparable to including fan created unofficial characters to a list of a franchise's real character list. These items don't belong there. Sergecross73 msg me 14:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am normally very in favor of merging as an WP:ATD, but I agree with Sergecross73 that these works are fundamentally different from the other Mickey Mouse works. Something going public domain is a very clear break in the topic. That is the date where we transition from officially authorized works to unauthorized (because they don't need authorization anymore). I might consider deletion as most of these do not have articles, and some of them are WP:CRYSTAL for works that are not out yet. But I might also weakly consider keeping it, if the non-notable entries are cleaned up. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Arguably falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE - the idea of things being made with a newly public domain character is merely a novelty that will eventually fade into irrelevance. All that this means is that the original list should likely be retitled "List of Mickey Mouse Disney media". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not following how it falls into INDISCRIMINATE. It's got a very defined scope and only 14 items on the list. I find it hard to believe its scope would spiral out with a simple "only include items covered by third party reliable sources verify" inclusion criteria set up. As your own words suggest, websites aren't going to cover every single absurd fan creation. Sergecross73 msg me 17:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Sources covering the subject of the list as a set exist. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the copyright act extensions which always seemed to keep Steamboat Willie out of the public domain are a long-running topic. There's certainly a potential to merge to 2024 in American public domain, but that's more properly a merge discussion, rather than something being mandated by AfD. Jclemens (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This is distinct from the Disney-owned work, and has been discussed as a set. The fact that the Copyright Term Extension Act was nicknamed the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act" indicates that this specific character passing into public domain is noteworthy. I agree that this is a novelty, but a relevant and notable one. Toughpigs (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – significant coverage of the set as a whole. I find it curious that the nominator thinks the set "oddly specific" and the delete !voter opines "Arguably falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE". Such is AFD. Thincat (talk) 03:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article is well sourced, and its concept and simple inclusion criteria should keep its scope manageable. Sergecross73 msg me 15:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Maybe a very niche trend in media but not more niche then, for instance, Bruceploitation-films where in the 1970s and 1980s. Mickey Mouse lapsing into the public domain had a significant enough effect on media, films and video games. Jonastav89 (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The idea may seem niché right now as it hasn't been a full year yet, it won't be however several years from now when a large amount of post-Disney material may have been published. There may also be a need to understand which Mickey Mouse material is still under Disney's control and which isn't. Abradrake (talk) 23:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abradrake see Wikipedia:NOTCRYSTAL Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant coverage and sources; notable. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Doesn't fall under INDISCRIMINATE. I'm planning to convert the Mouse (video game) redirect into an article. The mentions in the list have enough sources. Ahri Boy (talk) 03:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and retitle to Mickey Mouse in the public domain. This is a notable topic and has already spawned many notable projects. However it could use some work. I think that the article should be made up of largely two portions. The first is a prose type article where it discusses the history of the character going into the public domain, its impact and the challenges against it, and the future of the character in the PD. The second part would be a list of notable media that have been created based on the PD character.

With the list, it needs to be restricted to only those projects that are notable enough for their own article. This would prevent Sally Sue and John Average from adding their non-notable creations or those projects that may have gained 1-2 sources but failed to gain enough coverage to pass GNG.

In the case of things such as Brock's Dub, that can be briefly mentioned in the prose section (like a single sentence) as far as the sections on the impact/challenges go. That's something that gained a bit of coverage but really the only notable aspect of it is that it was challenged after the short went into the public domain. I'll be honest, based on current sourcing in the article neither The Return of Steamboat Willie nor Rubber Hose Rampage are notable enough for their own articles so they should be excluded until they become notable, as should Mickey vs. Winnie. All that we need as far as that info goes is a line that goes something like "After its release into the public domain several people released or announced their intent to create media based on Steamboat Willie." It's not unreasonable to assume that some of these announced projects will die before they are officially released or just never gain any additional coverage upon its release. The Savage Dragon one could probably be included but it would need more explanation as to what the appearance will entail. It could be a substantial role in a single issue (or longer) or it could just be a background character. In the case of the latter that would be worth noting but in the former it would be kind of indiscriminate and not really noteworthy. I just want to avoid this turning into a character-specific rendition of the infamous xkcd "In Popular Culture" comic about wood. Becoming more discriminate now would help reduce the chances of this happening later. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do note that the article says "substantial media attention" but the ones I noted without articles each have approximately 3 sources, most of which are primary or trivial sources. Part of the reason why I would recommend limiting this to ones that pass GNG/NFILM/etc would be to avoid cases where there is a brief flurry of announcement type articles based on press releases but not any substantial long term coverage like say, reviews and the like. Right now we're going to see a lot of projects gain "this was announced" type coverage, which will get copied by other websites depending on whether or not it's a slow news day, but then get solidly ignored after that point. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with many of your points, but it would probably make more sense to have this discussion on the article talk page, rather than this AfD... Toughpigs (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2024 (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.