From Wikisource

Proposed deletions

Shortcut: WS:DEL WS:PD

This page is for proposing deletion of specific articles on Wikisource in accordance with the deletion policy, and appealing previously-deleted works. Please add {{delete}} to pages you have nominated for deletion. Articles remaining on this page should be deleted if there is no significant opposition after at least a week.

Possible copyright violations should be listed at Possible copyright violations. Pages matching a criterion for speedy deletion should be tagged with {{sdelete}} and not reported here (see category).

[edit] Nominations

Please place your request in a level 2 header at the bottom of this page.

[edit] United States Code

Previous discussion here.

(And all its sub-pages. I didn't put {{delete}} on all of them because there are hundreds of them.)

It's not a static work. It is too dynamic and always changing. The policy, Wikisource:What Wikisource includes#Evolving works, states, "…works whose content is expected to constantly change over time, for the purpose of keeping the work updated, to improve the content matter of what has already been published, or to make the text more comprehensive, are excluded from Wikisource's scope." And one example given of an evolving work is: "Compilations where there are many sources of a particular text, and/or the text is to be constantly updated as more relevant information is found and added…" I know that a lot of work went into creating these articles, and it's a shame to delete them. Nevertheless, if one goes to a particular section of the code here on Wikisource, it may not match up to the code as it exists at that moment in law.—Markles 10:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This issue was handled in the case of the CIA World Factbook by preserving a 2004 version of the work. Obviously the US Code is much bigger, but one possible way to make it fit the "evolving works" standard would be to save a complete copy (djvu? pdf? not sure if this is even possible) and work from that. --Spangineer^wp (háblame) 12:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

jeez, keep. Emesee (talk • contribs)

Delete. Agree with Spangineer, if we keep that it should be a specific version that is identified for replication. The current hotchpotch is a little bit of a nightmare. billinghurst (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment I think "a little bit of a nightmare" and "hodgepodge" are apt descriptions. It already overwhelms the nice folks at Cornell (www.law.cornell.edu/uscode), the Law Revision Council (law.house.gov) and others. I suggest avoiding it altogether, even specific snapshots, because freezing it in time has little-to-no value to our readers, especially in light of how much work it would be to get that snapshot edited into Wikisource. On Wikipedia, meanwhile, we've done a good job using Template:UnitedStatesCode which links to the Cornell version and that's fine.—Markles 14:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Partial keep Having worked with this stuff when I largely replaced Template:USC with Template:USCX, I agree that most of this material is unlikely to be added, and totally incapable of being maintained. I can't even imagine anyone trying to do anything about the Internal Revenue Code. A few select titles, notably Title 17 (Copyright), are of great interest to those who edit here, and maintenance is within the realm of possibility. Those few should be kept. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. I can see some benefit, but even a great interest to a discerning audience is still not enough to overcome the accuracy problem of using evolving documents. I think does readers a disservice to send them to a document that might not be right.—Markles 18:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it's possible to get a complete copy of Title 17 ([1]), for example, upload it as a djvu to Commons, and use it as the source text for that Title on that particular date. If someone is willing to put in the effort to add the content of that file to Wikisource, I'm not opposed, so long as the date of download is clearly marked in the header, and a more regularly updated version (i.e., the appropriate government website) is prominently linked. As for the current material, I don't see any way to verify it, so I'm inclined to say delete all and rebuild it (if anyone has the desire) from dated sources uploaded to commons. --Spangineer^wp (háblame) 20:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete; it can be replaced with dated editions. Having done some work on it, I know very well that the current incomplete hodgepodge of various editions is a total mess. —Pathoschild 21:41:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete. I have to agree with the above. Trying to have the entire work up-to-date would require all of the energy of this project concentrated upon it, and even then, we still wouldn't necessarily be able to ensure complete accuracy. Keeping a few select, dated editions of significant titles is a good idea, however, especially in the instance of hte Copyright Act, which is very relevant to the rest of Wikisource. Jude (talk) 02:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment on keeping Title 17 - I think even keeping part of the Code, particularly Title 17 pertaining to copyrights, increases the problem. We are directing readers to that title everytime a PD msg is put up. But if it's out-of-date then we're doing them a disservice. Just because it's important doesn't mean it's a good idea to keep an Evolving work, in violation of WS policy.—Markles 18:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  - I think that's a good argument for directing readers to an official site with every PD message instead of the wikisource version, which, as you say, may be out of date. Any copy kept by wikisource should be presented as a historical document, not as a current reference. --Spangineer^wp (háblame) 04:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
    - Then perhaps to the extent that any pages are kept they should also include a date and a link that may be followed for a more up-to-date version. Anyone would remain free to update the Wikisource pages. This should be the case for all statutory documents, not just the US Code. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
      - Look at Civil Rights Act of 1964. It states in its header: "enacted July 2, 1964." It has since been amended many times (see http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964). Is that what you mean?—Markles 11:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
        
        Yes and no. What I really had in mind was how we treat the laws of other countries; they have similar problems. (But see more below.) Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Why not keep as dated? Even if the law changes in the future, we can still maintain an accurate record of what the law was at a particular time, or from a particular range of dates. This is actually useful to the extent that, when an act is committed that is asserted to be unlawful, the law applied is that which existed on the date of the act, not on the date of adjudication of liability. BD2412 T 17:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that's the general consensus, but the text we have now is not dated; it's a hodgepodge of different sources and editions. —Pathoschild 20:11:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Viewing the issue here as a proposed deletion is entirely too simplistic; there are hundreds of (perhaps more than a thousand) articles involved. Some most certainly should be deleted. A better approach might be to take a wider look at how Wikisource handles the entirety of law as a subject matter, perhaps through a new Portal:Law. We might begin by looking at the difference between an "Act" and the "Code". Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a good place to start looking at this. If you go ahead to Title I, that begins "Section 2004 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1971), as amended by section 131 of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (71 Stat. 637), and as further amended by section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 90), is further amended as follows:" The primary reference there leads us to section 1971 in Chapter 20 of Title 42. That chapter is not currently on Wikisource. The numbering of that Title goes up to Chapter 148, but in all that the only section we have directly is 263a in Chapter 6a relating to "Certification of laboratories" in Public health. The text of Acts should remain as produced; they may have been subsequently amended, but that would belong to some later Act. All Code sections here should have links to the relevant Cornell and/or government sites, and the header notes, in addition to stating how recent our content is, should advise the reader how to get more recent information. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

How we handle a wholistic approach to dealing with replicating laws of 200 nations and subsidiary legislatures, add in the UN, WTO, etc. is a necessary discussion, though, I don't think that is the forum. One needs to understand the differences in another countries legislative frameworks and associated jargon. I am happy with the key point of not replicating a dynamic work, and looking at specific snapshots; while the discussion on the development of how to do it, I believe belongs elsewhere, and needs consideration, and NOT just from a US viewpoint. -- billinghurst (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the idea that codes can be different from statutes, but we also run into problems that certain codes are written at a specific time themselves and then later amended. Take, for example, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.—Markles 22:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Let me add, also, that Wikisource shouldn't be a legal reference. Woe to them who use it as such.—Markles 22:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as we know it today is really an alternative name for Title 26 of the US Code. It replaced the IRC of 1954, which in turn replaced the IRC of 1939. PL 99-514, with the short title, "Tax Reform Act of 1986" was the specific statute that implemented this. We have only a few scattered sections of this, and the Cornell site itself states that 1176 updates remain to be integrated. Anybody who believes that we can maintain this Title needs being struck with a big clue-bot, and our few scattered section are likely good candidates for deletion. I also agree that the Wikisource pages should not be used as a legal reference in a real case, but they can be a useful launching point for someone's legal research. This distinctly parallels the situation where Wikipedia articles should not be used as references for student papers.

What it comes down to is that the holistic discussion should take place before any massive deletion campaign. That discussion will better inform any deletion process, and allow anything salvageable to be saved. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 08:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Naturally the discussion should take place, however, the deletion forum isn't that place IMNSHO. We are talking about a structured component of WS, so that requires the opportunity for a full community, presumably WS:S. -- billinghurst (talk) 08:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Billinghurst (talk • contribs) has a good point, WS:S might be a better place to have a greater in-depth discussion about this issue with the wider community. Cirt (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep title 17, at least. A few points, some of which have been made above:
- Title 17 is directly pertinent to, at a minimum, WS:WWI and WS:COPY, and is frequently referenced in discussions at WS:S and WS:COPYVIO. In other words, it has value as a ready (and linkable) reference for this project itself, irrespective of its additional value as another source text within our library.
- Title 17 is also referenced on (and linked from) en.wp and en.wb, several legal blogs, and probably other projects also. We are talking about breaking a lot of people’s links.
- Many of the items in Category:United States copyright cases construe (and link to) the provisions of Title 17. Contrary to the suggestion that our copy of Title 17 isn’t a reference source, it’s entirely feasible to use it as such. Just look up a provision that interests you (say, § 107) and click “what links here”: Presto, a list of cases applying that provision of the statute. That the listing is incomplete (because fewer than all cases are online here) is no reason to delete the underlying text of the statute; WS doesn’t hold itself out as comprehensive and nobody has suggested deleting other very large but incomplete projects.
- It doesn’t change that often. The last meaningful amendments to Title 17 were the additions of Chapters 12 and 13, eleven years ago. Year-to-year ferment in the Code may be a reason to delete some parts of it (at least, until somebody gets around to writing the scripts that would be necessary to keep our version synced with the official one), but carries little force as a reason to delete Title 17.
Should a consensus emerge to delete the Code in its entirety, I would hope that implementation of that decision could be delayed long enough to permit an upload of a djvu of the most recent published version of the Code and a migration of the text to the Page: namespace. In the most recent published version of the Code (2006), Title 17 is fewer than 200 pages, well within our capacity to handle. Tarmstro99 (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Tarmstro? How did you envisage that this document should be handled, as static or dynamic? If static, then which date were you going to settle upon? If multiple dates, how are you proposing to differentiate? Does it (legislation) require a disclaimer that it is of a date, rather than necessarily current? -- billinghurst (talk) 02:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

All pages hosting modern laws should have such a disclaimer. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 07:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

As they generally do. We could record comparable information on the {{textinfo}} box. My slight preference, although I’m not trying to dictate policy, would be for us to host the most recent (current) version of the code, a document which naturally will evolve over time (albeit much more slowly, at least as far as Title 17 is concerned, than people seem to be assuming). Once our version gets synced up with subsequent amendments to the statute, former versions of the text will remain accessible in the edit history: in an ideal world, you could step back and see the law as it existed a year ago by examining our copy of the page from a year ago. At least, that is how I’d prefer to see our copy of Title 17 evolve; others may (and probably do) have perfectly valid contrary opinions. Tarmstro99 (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep. I think this is more of a Scriptorum issue then here; it's too large. I have no problem keeping static copies of the laws. In response to Tarmstro99, right above (13:56 04/22/09), if you want to do the 2006 published edition of the laws, or just Title 17, I'm happy with that. I think that's strongly in our mandate. However, I think each page should be static; if a law is updated on the 1st of June, and then on the 15th of November, 2009, and we're trying to follow the laws, then we should have Title 17 xxx (1 June, 2009) and Title 17 xxx (15 November, 2009). The edit history isn't to track the evolution of the text, it's to track the evolution towards perfection in the text itself and the changes in the various notes we put around the text.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Let me emphasize for clarity; I encourage the keeping of these texts as static texts, especially if we're matching a published edition.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  - Keeping a static edition of each title isn't necessarily a bad idea, but it could rapidly spiral out of our own control in attempting to keep them up-to-date (or the post the more 'recent' version). It would still be a massive project and undertaking, possibly more than just keeping it up to date. I wouldn't oppose this suggestion is someone were willing to implement it and see it through. Jude (talk) 10:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    - This is a project for all published writing in the English language; that dwarfs any tiny subset of it, like the US Codes. We have too many in-progress projects here for me to worry about one more.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment on the importance of Title 17 - Is it important to the readers or to the editors who have an understandable interest in copyright law because of the nature of Wikimedia? Many of the statutes in Wikisource are amendments to Title 17, but those represent a small minority of all statutes enacted. Title 17 is no more special than Title 18 (crimes) or Title 42 (Public Health - which is the largest title by far). TItle 17 may be less dynamic than some others, but what's the reason to keep it in Wikisource? Does it further WS's mission? Why not just link to Cornell or law.house.gov, where they have non-profit/government professionals who keep it up-to-date better than we ever could? —Markles 11:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment on appropriateness of discussion here vs. Scriptorium - As the proponent of this deletion, I have learned a lot about this subject. I will concede that this should get a review at WS:S before any action taken.—Markles 11:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It might be best merely to make an announcement on the Scriptorium and direct people here to involve them in the discussion. Jude (talk) 10:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Done! See WS:S#Large deletion proposal of United States Code.—Markles 12:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep. If the United States Code is to be deleted, then I could also propose deleting the laws of the Republic of China because the Legislative Yuan now in Taipei, Taiwan amends these laws more frequently than Communist China and I cannot always maintain the English translation as I am already so busy on Chinese Wikisource.--Jusjih (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- "If delete A, then delete B." Why does that mean "Keep"?—Markles 18:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  - I consider the laws of the Republic of China evolving works like the United States Code. To keep the United States Code, we need a uniform governmental source to get the text including revision history. Otherwise, maintaining is so hard. English translations of the Republic of China also have the major problem about evolving changes, but I am reluctant to have them deleted, though I stop posting more for now.--Jusjih (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment I think we should move the pages to a static dated version and replace them with disambiguation page offering whatever static pages we have (which presumably will grow) as well as a link to more reliably updated source. Deleting alone is a poor option, who knows what sort of incoming links we have.--BirgitteSB 18:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Myself, I don't think networking disadvantage should ever come between site policy. While your idea has merit, precious little should preclude action in any circumstance if it's required by policy. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Relisting to gain proper consensus.

The current consensus appears to be that we keep some acts/titles as dated, "stable" copies, with external links to an up-to-date copy. The question merely remains is: Which titles do we wish to keep static copies of, and which titles should be deleted?. Jude (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem remains that the proposal is too big and has too many pages for a simple deletion discussion. To start with for the short to medium term I would keep the main page for the code, and for each of the Titles in the code until each can be given its proper consideration in separate discussions. These are also helpful to the reader who just wants a broad idea of how these things are organized. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 09:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep, no way. United States Code/Title 17 is an example of what we can do. In time, people will give similar special treatment to the other parts of this work. Rome was not built in a day. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe the point being made is that, currently, the USC is languishing with nobody giving special treatment to other parts of the work. There are parts of the code that are impossible to keep up to date--and there are parts of the code that we're currently hosting which are massively out of date. United States Code/Title 17 might be (and indeed, is) a brilliant example, but what of the rest of it? Jude (talk) 12:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Once we are finished title 17, we will focus on the others. Title 2 and 44 are ones I would like to do. I am sure that Title 10 would be done quickly if we grabbed some of the MilHistory project. Deleting these pages destroys a lot of the infrastructure which has been started. e.g. United States Code/Title 15/Chapter 7A is probably the only good page of Title 15, but it helps set up cross links. ala w:WP:BTW. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The point about the infrastructure is important. Proposing the deletion of many of these pages is tantamount to saying that we should delete the Encyclopædia Britannica pages because we haven't been able to complete the whole thing quickly enough. Yes, there are parts, such as the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26), that are probably impossible to maintain, and these may never be done, but that's normal for such an immense project. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion—I've already explained why all these titles should be deleted (with the exception of Title 17 and the existing hierarchy pages); it boils down to a) we shouldn't show inaccurate material to our readers, b) much of our material is out-of-date, and c) it's just as easy to recreate the material as update it. However, here's a potential compromise—what if on each US Code page we hide the text, as we do for possible copyright violations or long discussions, and add a template saying something like "This content may be out of date. Please see <external link> for an up-to-date version. You may also [[show]] Wikisource's text." Once a user recopies the text and date-stamps it, the text is no longer hidden and a different template is used instead, saying, "This material was accurate as of <date>. Updates since then may be reflected at <external link>." --Spangineer^wp (háblame) 13:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind actively discouraging people from using our texts where they are out of date. In most cases, we have a link to Cornell at the top. We could make that more prominent. But most of our pages are empty - they are a structure waiting to be filled. I've added text quality links for the first 17 chapters. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Spangineer's three criteria appear to make sense at first glance; however:

(a) The fundamental premise is sound, but rather than simply removing the inaccurate material, it is more constructive to express the extent of our doubts. By demanding perfection from the beginning, we can never attain it.

(b) Of course most of it is out of date. We hide possible copyright violations because of the legal implications that are not a part of this matter. That first part of the suggested compromise can probably be bypassed, and it will be enough to go directly to the second.

(c) The major failing of this view is that people don't recreate things when they don't know that they need to be recreated. Newbies who are running around looking for something to do won't touch it if they don't have a framework to work from. Most of us are unlikely to have any interest in agriculture whatsoever, but if someone comes along with a keen interest in Title 7, that little bit of structure may be all the encouragement that he needs.

The Cornell links could be a little more detailed so that they go directly to the referenced provision. The quality links on the head USC page are a good beginning toward making sense of this material from the top. I have two suggestions here: 1. The 0% template should show a symbol of some kind; this would distinguish between really having nothing and simply not having yet considered that provision. 2. The 25% template could have an optional parameter showing the degree of progress. Thus "2/63" would indicate that we host bits from two of the 63 chapters in that title. The parameter doesn't need to be super accurate since its purpose is only to give a rough idea of how far that title has progressed. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't have a problem with keeping "structure" pages that don't have any text on them or contain only a framework. I'm against showing out-of-date text to readers without a clear and easily noticed warning. --Spangineer^wp (háblame) 19:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Good. Then we're not as far apart as it first seemed. We agree about warnings. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at United States Code/Title 26/Chapter 1/Subchapter B/Part I/Section 63. Are the notes there what you were thinking of? By all means let us know if this can be improved. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 05:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I rearranged the note a bit, but overall it looks fine to me. The notes on all these pages might be better handled with a template, so that the key information is always in the same place. --Spangineer^wp (háblame) 14:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with the changes. The template would presumably be inserted in the "Notes" section. What would it include? So far I see currency date, unconsolidated amendments, and proofread date. I would suggest that the 75% template should not be allowed on a statutory provision until these notes have been completed, but I don't know if that is technically feasible. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

In the old discussion, someone suggested downloading a complete copy of the U.S. Code and working from that. This is feasible as the House of Representatives makes the whole thing freely available for download.[2] In fact, I think this is what Cornell uses as its own source. ASCII and PDF are both available. Seems possible to write some kind of script to parse at least one of those formats and rewrite it in MediaWiki markup. Then cite the "2008 edition" or whatever to let people know how old the copy is. --LarryGilbert (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is what LII (Cornell) used originally at some point and still applies for the changes to the Code since then as well as for keeping each Title's sub-division's "Notes" page current & relevant. While I agree that it's possible to bring the category up to ~January 2008's revision of the Code with some combination of scripting and importation (above my skill set & pay grade), the feasibility of doing so would require an effort that is beyond the level of interest shown in the category to date (well at least that's my perception from the short time I've been here I should add). While I hope for a complete Code to be hosted here not only for the related WS content that can utilize the info but to do away with the clutter and redundancy of the Code on Wikipedia as well, the likelihood of tackling a project like that are slim to none in my opinion.

The best solution offered that I've read has been to have the basic framework (or 'the folder tree' if you prefer) of each Title's sub-division's reamain in place and hopefully pass the reader off from there to a related Wikipedia article or to an external source hosting the Code such as LII so they can investigate the content and how current it is on their own if they wish to. George Orwell III (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:USC

If United States Code is deleted (see above), then this template should be deleted, too.—Markles 10:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikisource:WikiProject US Code for other considerations. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Notification of deletions

As per a previous discussion about Author pages created with little likelihood for WS to be able to host works, I have deleted a number of Author: pages created by 164.113.135.67 (talk • contribs). I have left a note on the contributor's page.-- billinghurst (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sir Patrick Spens

I have merged Sir Patrick Spens into Child's Ballads/58 as that includes the same text plus more. Is that ok? --Filceolaire (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

If you did due diligence, then that sounds okay. -- billinghurst (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a problematical situation. The contents of Sir Patrick Spens were not sourced so there is no way to determine whether it was taken from Child, or to otherwise properly identify its provenance. That being the case, it might as well redirect. Talk:Child's Ballads gives the source for these pages as http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/eng/child/index.htm. That source is itself an abridgement of Child's second version. It still appears there under its correct title The English and Scottish Popular Ballads. If someone has a mind to do the work all of these ballads should appear under that title instead of the colloquial Child's Ballads. That would also serve to distinguish it from the earlier version (rather than edition) if the compilation, which went under the simpler title English and Scottish ballads. The numbering of the ballads was different in that version. Note too that the version used as a source also omits Child's detailed commentary about each ballad. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Blank page

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted.—Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This template is now redundant as the Page: ns now has the grey "Without text" radio button. I have cleansed all the relevant uses of {{blank page}} from the Page: ns and the only remaining refs are from archives or talk pages. -- billinghurst (talk) 06:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there definitely not going to be any more bot-uploading of djvu-embedded OCR text? I ask because I believe the pywikipedia framework's djvutext.py, which is/was used by various bot accounts to perform this task, is set up to use this template, rather than leaving pages blank. My personal opinion is that such bots are now worse than unnecessary, so it is safe to go ahead and delete the template. Hesperian 07:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not up to speed on the enhancements, however I think the OCR text is not exposed to search engines until the page has been created. So that would be a reason to continue uploading OCR text using bots.

In regards to this template, the bot logic can be improved to make use of this new "Without text" option.

So, I can't think of any reason to keep this template. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Brigham Young

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Emptied and deleted. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how or why this category page exists. We have author pages for and works about authors, having the category is modifying how we are looking to accumulate and present information. [Apart from the fact that we seem to have aspects of over-categorisation on subpages). -- billinghurst (talk) 03:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. billinghurst (talk)
I agree in principle. There are currently 367 pages in the category so this is going to need a lot of work. I would suggest this as a two stage process beginning by removing the category from those pages where he is the author. Once this is done, the proposal can then be reconsidered based on what's left. In the more general question our author pages are probably over-categorized and main space under categorized, but the general question of categorization is a broader one for another place. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 09:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete - Also, Eclecticology (talk • contribs) suggests a very good way to go about doing this. Cirt (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
It looks like a lot of the pages are individual journal articles that aren't listed individually on his author page, and might well need a subpage for a reasonable sized page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm quite sure every non-Journal page has now been vacated from the category. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

All the subpages to the work have now been vacated too. I think that we can close and it be removed.-- billinghurst (talk) 08:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] SDWIS-105300002/LUMMI WATER DISTRICT 1

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: E-mail: No evidence of publication or worth, no source data, and I doubt it's worth chasing around to find out more. It's currently a mess, and can be remade properly if necessary (doubtful). Stale for a month. Deleted. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a laboratory results sheet that has been emailed. I doubt that it has been published, or holds relevance as a historic document. -- billinghurst (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. billinghurst (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment - It is most definitely an EPA response to a Freedom of Information Act request but there's little else to go on in the e-mail header or in the content itself. I do know that the Lummi Indian Tribe (Washington state?) has brought court action against the local & Federal government for violating their water rights secured by treaties with the U.S. Gov't back in the 1800's over the years - the latest giving the EPA the motivation it needed to actually admit it and do something about it I believe. I'd touch base with whomever does/did the Supreme Court category stuff and maybe even the early Statues at Large pages to see if this was suppose to fit into one or the other somehow. George Orwell III (talk) 01:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007/Section 3/Title X/Workforce Investment Act, Section 171 amendment

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: speedy moved billinghurst (talk) 08:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Never mind the lack of a header or even being an orphan here, the page, and whatever it's intent was, is also completely redundant. It is basically a copy of the original amendment being made found in the main article -- which happens to be in the form of an addition to the end of existing statue with completely new content; not a series of deletions and/or insertions made to existing language where it's conceivable creating such a page is worthwhile or actually serves a purpose.

This, however, is nothing more than pointless clutter.

There's a pointless redirect related to the Title X page that, at the minimum should get the boot too (but in light of the 2 dozen other pointless redirects clutering things up}, I guess keeping this single one makes no housekeeping difference at the end of the day. George Orwell III (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

While I keep away from US legislation, it sounds like a delete for redundancy/replication. Pointless redirects should be converted to {{dated soft redirect}} so they can be cleaned out by the bot in a couple of months. -- billinghurst (talk) 04:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: Well I think I figured out what the original author's intent may have been when he/she pruned out most of the significant "branches" of changes being made to existing law(s) as they should have been found in the original work's layout and placing these paragraphs & sections on separate subpages instead.
• An example of what I believe the author was trying to do starts in Title XI, Subtitle C, Section 1121, subsection (a). Here, subsection (a) instructs that a new Chapter is to be added to the existing law(s) at the time and the text for this new chapter was to follow. The author instead cuts this entire new chapter from where it should have appeared as it did the original's layout and places it on it's own sub-subpage, a link & back-link to the now "missing" chapter is substituted {‘‘CHAPTER 556—SHORT SEA TRANSPORTATION’’ in this example} and returns to following the original work's layout until the next point where a considerable amount of new or amended content normally would have appeared, repeating the above.
• Anyway, isn't there a way to kill the substituted link and just have the content appear where it should, under the Title/Section that it should, without making this into more of a project??? I've seen something similar to this being done with certain templates and their documentation page popping up for you when actually viewing the template instead of applying it. George Orwell III (talk) 06:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you asking about transcluding a page? You can include the text of another page or a section of a page readily. If you want to transclude a whole page you would code it like {{:Some Other Page}} and you can use relative links if it is a subpage or a full path. Happy to point you to an example, or directly assist if that is required. -- billinghurst (talk) 01:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

YES.. that's it. Thanks (I keep forgeting that made-up term). I gave it a shot but I get the feeling I renamed the page being inserted into the main work's subpage's section incorrectly. I'm also curious to know what to do about the missing header on the page being inserted too. George Orwell III (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: Scratch all the stuff above re: trancluding a 3rd page into the main body of the article (resolved) except for the original request to delete the page with the duplicate content linked in this section's header. Thanks. George Orwell III (talk) 09:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Note, I placed a header on the page, you should consider the appropriate linking. billinghurst (talk)

[edit] Template:NewSection

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted billinghurst (talk) 10:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Deprecated template and no longer in use. Not sure whether went through a discussion previously. -- billinghurst (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. billinghurst (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete - Deprecated and no longer used. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Move to Wikilivres

Since they are not edicts, nor legislation, nor court decisions - none of the existing WS templates adequately allow us to host the following works of Canadian Prime Minister Author:Stephen Harper, and I propose moving them to WikiLivres which is hosted in Canada and allows reproduction of the copyrighted texts.

Address to the House of Commons (20 March 2003)
Conservative Party Agreement-in-Principle (15 October 2003)
2006 election victory speech (23 January 2006)
Apology to Payers of the Canadian Head Tax (23 June 2006)
Apology to Former Students of Indian Residential Schools (11 June 2008)

Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din.} 15:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Statements to parliaments that are voted by parliamentarians could be seen under a different light in my limited opinion, they are formal statements.-- billinghurst (talk) 10:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Victi Resurgunt (2009)

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Moved generically to Author:Florence Earle Coates, page deleted by (text arrangement) author request. ResScholar (talk) 06:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a modern anthology of public domain works. I don't know that we have permission to use it; it hasn't been properly annotated or sent to OTRS, but given the behavior of the person adding it, I suspect that they are doing it with the permission of the editor and could give us clear permission. While the contents are acceptable, the anthology itself is a self-published artistic work that shouldn't be here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless clear permission that all of the anthology is in public domainDelete as anthology in main namespace. That said, the anthology it could be similarly compiled as such in Author: namespace. Also there is probably not the requirement for the blatant push on each page towards the author's project. Put it on the Author: namespace page, and leave it at that? -- billinghurst (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate direction here. I am the compiler/self-publisher of this work. The pamphlet has been assigned an ISBN number via Bowker; the hard-copy pamphlet itself is protected under general copyright because of its unique organization and formatting (font, etc.), but the poems and quotations themselves are public domain material and are eligible for listing at Wikisource -- unless I am in err. Please feel free to correct me on this! Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

When I began my research on this poet, I was hard-pressed to find any information online about her. What information I have been able to compile, I have listed on my website, as well as on the Wikipedia pages. If it appears that I have made a "blatant push" toward my informational website, it is because it is the only website with any comprehensive information about the poet... Which is why I have chosen to "spread the wealth" on Wikipedia and her sister sites. Although I am new to Wikipedia, I have made a great effort to make sure I add information and sources responsibly, and would like to fully cooperate with the rules of your site. Thank You, Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I see no problems with keeping this. Individual contents all appear to easily qualify for inclusion. A simple listing of the contents of an anthology is descriptive information rather than a creative work, and as such not copyrightable. Artistic presentation and organization, new illustrations, biographical notes, etc. could be copyright protected, but are not essential to what we do here. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 06:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

- An anthology does have a collection copyright; you can not produce a new anthology with the same works in the same order. More over, while the individual contents all appear to easily qualify for inclusion, I have the same concerns about the anthology itself as motivated the inclusion principle; we're not a place for self-published material. The description of the anthology is as irrelevant as the description of any self-published work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  - Self-publishing is a separate issue from copyright, so let's avoid conflating the two. Two anthologies with the same works in the same order can be legally published as long as one is not derived from the other; it is possible if two editors choose the same selection and ordering criteria. Londonjackbooks's primary selection criterion appears directed at including all of her Coates's works. This kind of careful effort takes time. For a database site such as Wikisource ordering is a meaningless concept. Even where order would be relevant a common predictable order such as alphabetical or chronological would not be copyrightable. It's dismissive to say that a description of an anthology is irrelevant. The description is on the other side of the w:Idea-expression divide from the anthology itself. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  - With all respect, Florence Earle Coates also "self-published" her 16-page pamphlet, Pro Patria (1917). Is that work also irrelevant here? Or does it carry more weight since it is historical?... I do understand your "collection [order] copyright" argument... Here is my proposed solution: I will list the name only of the collection in the "works" section, but will do so without the brackets ([[ ]]); i.e., without the link to the work details... Since most of the poems contained in the collection are "fugitive verse," I will list them under the "fugitive verse" heading in the order that they appeared in the magazines, etc. That should satisfy both the "order copyright" issue as well as the "irrelevancy" issue (although I disagree with the latter argument). Hope this helps... Please continue to provide feedback! Sincerely, Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

- - - WS:WWI specifically includes works published before 1923, whether self-published or not. Most projects like ours tend to be a lot more generous about the inclusion rules for older works than newer works, since older works don't have the vanity issues new self-published works tend to suffer from.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
      - No "vanity issues" here! I have given away more hard copies than I can ever expect to sell (zero so far!)... After I discovered the contents of the original pamphlet, Pro Patria (1917), and later Mrs. Coates' subsequent fugitive verse on the war, I wanted to give the fugitive verse a "home" of sorts to serve as a complement to Pro Patria--to complete the story... I have no problem if the site chooses deletion of Victi--I am happy just to be able to contribute Mrs. Coates' works and verse for others who may appreciate her poetry as I have! I am learning much here!Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Any item should be accessioned with proper attribution. A note on the source in the header or on the talk via {{Edition}} is best practice. From an electicological perspective, sub-paging the works to the title would allow this detail to be noted once, eg. Victi Resurgunt/Serbia. An even better contribution would be if the Londonjackbooks provide the 'wealth' of transcriptions from the original publications, with annotation given as above. Cygnis insignis (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Electicological??? :-P I don't think that sub-paging would solve the problem. A typical anthology is a collection of works which have all or mostly all been previously published in separate contexts. They are a derived source. We probably need a broader discussion about the position of anthologies in the hierarchy of any author's work. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  - Apologies, I meant to type eclecticological :) Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I do plan to more completely expand the 'wealth' of info. in the days ahead... It is slow-going being new to the formatting, etc. Thank you for the suggestions. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  
  You're doing fine. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Please allow me to add that removing the wikilink to the collection on the author page and letting the collection "float" without any link referring to it on any different page is not a satisfactory solution. If the work has an ISBN number, it's a published work and can be licensed. I don't think anyone here cares if Londonjackbooks is deciding to retain the copyright on the typesetting arrangement. In essence it would be a case of "some rights reserved". By the same token if you are adding more source info to your proposed public domain wikisource edition that's not a copyright concern either. I think the consequence of what Eclecticology was saying about Londonjackbooks anthology ordering being the result of "careful effort" is therefore that Londonjackbooks should either issue a license release of the ordering of the anthology, or remove the anthology page and contribute the poem titles in a generic manner on the author page, with any productive originality involved being automatically licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0. ResScholar (talk) 06:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Anyone with the authority/ability to do so may permanently delete the Victi Resurgunt (2009)page... I have already listed the titles chronologically (as published) under "Fugitive verse" on the author page, and feel that is sufficient! Much thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for patiently and considerately addressing our sometimes all-too-cumbersome licensing requirements. ResScholar (talk) 06:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:EB11

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Redirected to 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Header. John Vandenberg ^{(chat) 05:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)}

There are two document templates in use for 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Template:EB11 and Template:EB1911. Pages were duplicated with Template:EB11 as top level pages, and Template:EB1911 as subpages of the work. I have created redirects for the former, to respectively point to the latter. There are no active pages using this template and it should now be deleted.

Delete as per nom. billinghurst (talk) 09:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed Template:EB11 from the one article page it was linked to and replaced with Template:EB1911. The article was 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Münnich, Burkhard Christoph. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 07:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have redirected this template so that old revisions like this work correctly. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikisource:Protected against recreation

This page was originally created to allow administrators to protect pages from creation using cascading protection. However, the MediaWiki software now allows administrators to directly protect pages from creation. Administrators can also "mass protect" pages that match certain regular expressions by using Mediawiki:Titleblacklist. As such, I don't think this page is needed anymore. (I cannot add the {{delete}} tag since the page itself is protected.) Alternatively, this page can be unprotected and turned into a soft redirect to special:protectedtitles. --Ixfd64 (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Many of the pages on the list should probably be removed. The Ass Pus vandal, for example, already has proven that he has enough imagination to come up with new names, so maintaining these on the list only leaves us with a long list of titles that nobody will ever use. Keeping them on the list seems consistent with his aims. Some titles are listed for copyright purposes, but it is the actual work that is copyright, not the title. The protection on the titles should expire after a reasonable time. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason for us to be repeatedly manually deleting 1984. Whatever the copyright issues, having that on a list against recreation does nothing but save us admins time.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment I see that the proposal is to delete the page with the listing, not to stop protecting certain pages. Subsequent to that there is the intimation that those that are protected could look to be moved to varied types of protection that may be more effective.

Personally, I had never seen the page, and I believe that it is redundant to needs. That said, as admins, we probably need to review all the new(er) mediawiki components, and look to update as necessary. Until that is done, I believe that the page should be retained. billinghurst (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Unused and ancient templates

As part of clean-up I have deleted some old pre-parser templates (unused and undescribed), was going to bring them here however Pathoschild indicated that it was wasting everyone's time. -- billinghurst (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete(d) per nom. ;-) Hesperian 01:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Eccentric denominations and Category:Smaller religious movements

These two categories are inappropriate, as they would be a subjective, rather than objective categorization. As such they should be deleted and not be used. To contrast this, the category Category:New religious movements is more appropriate, as it can be shown that multiple scholars in secondary sources have referred to groups and organizations as such (see w:List of new religious movements). Cirt (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete, NRM is a scholastic term, these other two terms seem to be original Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din.} 00:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't argue against "Smaller religious movements" since I just cleaned that one out. "Eccentric denominations" has the benefit of being objectively defined as unconventional, and unconnected with any of the principal religious categories. (Do you have a better term?) "New" is a subjective term that is best avoided because it will always be changing. Some of the things now in that category (Aquarian Gospel, Urantia Book, et al.} aren't new at all. The theology of some shows as affinity to Christian or other religious mainstreams, and are best organized as denominations within those groups. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 00:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Response: In books: 1,571 on "new religious movements" versus 8 on "Eccentric denominations". Cirt (talk) 02:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

What do Google hits have to do with this? This discussion is about categories, and how best to develop a coherent organizational structure. Your novelty cults won't stay new forever, and since most of what happens here is about public domain material one can expect that most of it won't be used here. You still haven't even given a precise explanation of what you mean by new, nor have you explained how the two categories being discussed are mutually exclusive. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 07:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Your suggested term and the other one are of the subjective invention of those that created the categories. The term "new religious movements", however, is objectively defined by religious scholars. And those are not simply "google hits", but rather mentions in books. Cirt (talk) 08:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sherurcij makes a good point. "Eccentric" in particular is the sort of term that might be viewed as pejorative by a religion's members. "New religious movement", in spite of its use of the word new is a common phrase in serious scholarship and is preferred by adherents of various organizations as non-pejorative. Durova (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- You still don't answer my point. If you have a preferable word to replace "eccentric" (which I use in the most literal sense, and not pejoratively), and which communicates the idea, that's fine. Pretending that a pop culture term like "new religious movement" has anything to to with serious scholarship does nothing to define precisely what it means. Neither has anyone tried to distinguish between a denomination and a movement. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  - Eclecticology, I will assume good faith that you have not yet read the scholarship relating to this topic. "New religious movement" is most certainly not a "pop culture term", and it definitely has received serious scholarship in literally thousands of scholarly publications. Cirt (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
    - If it's such a "scholarly" term why are you resisting precise definition. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
      - As always Wikipedia gives a good starting point for New religious movement. It is clearly a widley used "scholarly" term. The same cannot be said for the other two; they appear poorly named, redundant and virtually empty (can Freemasonry even be sensibly classed as an eccentric denomination?). Eclecticology, in my opinion, you must provide really good reasons why we should be grouping movements along different lines to all the academics. Finally on the use of "new", it is the academics job to name movements, and it is they who will have to come up with a name for the next wave of religions. We need not be concerned about that. Suicidalhamster (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
        
        To say that academics have the right to name such movements is a specious ivory-tower argument. When have Wikimedia projects ever kissed ass in that way? Sure your term is widely used, even by scholars, but they are at least honest enough to recognize that it is ill-defined. In the Wikipedia article: "Use of the term is not universally accepted among the groups to which it is applied." ... in the link at http://www.cesnur.org/2001/mi_june03.htm : "It is somewhat ironic that, at a conference on the future of religion, a paper should be devoted to a category which is being slowly dismantled, and may have, as such, no future." Of the other two terms I am only arguing for one; there is general agreement to delete the other. "Poorly named" is a fair criticism, but I'm willing to help in the search for a neutral solution. It's not at all redundant, because unlike your term it's not time limited; the wandering preachers who wandered about Europe causing mayhem in the 13th century and the rest of the Renaissance could just as easily fit into the category. The virtual emptiness is only a temporary by-product of the present exercise. The Freemasons are in there because they were already classified as a religion; if there is general agreement that they are not a religion I have no problem removing them from any sub-category of religion. Eclecticology - the offended (talk)
        
        This should not be up to the "general agreement" of individual website users as to what characterization is or is not appropriate, we should defer to what scholars have said in reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 02:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
        
        With respect extended toward Eclecticology, it does seem simpler to organize pages at Wikisource according to terminology that is already in broad academic use. It's not an ideological stand so much as a service to the site's readers. Durova (talk) 02:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Things can be categorised by "Religion", then to major religions; things not fitting into a major religion can be be categorised to their specific religious branch, or left in "Religion". There are new religious movements, there are defunct religious movements, but terms like "eccentric" and "small" are fairly perjorative. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din.} 02:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, and "new religious movement" is generally seen within scholarship not to be a pejorative. Cirt (talk) 04:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete 1 & 2, keep 3 Sherurcij's statement summarises nicely for me; with other commentary having influenced my POV. -- billinghurst (talk) 04:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete 1 & 2, Keep 3 I see that Eclecticology (talk • contribs) added Category:New religious movements into this deletion discussion [3], I had not previously noticed that. So I agree with the sentiment expressed above by Billinghurst. Cirt (talk) 06:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I originated Category:Smaller religious movements because I figured there's a lot of them and that they might be dwarfed when compared to the larger movements with many sub and sub-sub categories. They could at least belong to a group that has many subcategories. There are often books written about a selected number of related small groups, but few about a particular small group. So I vote Delete 1; Keep 2 & 3. ResScholar (talk) 07:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- I took a look, and only one of them would be classified as small that isn't already in new religious groups. You all can delete it. I'll recreate it if we make it up to 3 books about small religious groups that aren't new. ResScholar (talk) 07:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletions

I'm going to nominate a work for speedy deletion as part of routine clean-up. I would like someone else to carry out the deletion as a verification of my reasoning. I may decide to do more, in case nobody has time to do them, and they end up sitting there, and you start to wonder what they're doing there. ResScholar (talk) 08:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] No idea

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deletedProsfilaes (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

paroled article and posted here محمد عماد محوك, Jeepday (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Google Translate says "MEM calligrapher Aleppo Is interested in Arabic calligraphy and writing the Koran or parts thereof in various types of Arabic calligraphy and writing calligraphy art and restoration of the manuscript Koran and the writings of mosques in addition to the work of woodlands Sharif family and descent according to the appropriate technical methods, decoration, art, the Arab-Islamic in general." Good for speedy deleting, IMO.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Jeepday (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act

A stray article or two in proposed legislation. The language contained within did make it into law ~2003, but as (sub)sections under a title in a more encompassing bill rather than as stand-alone bills.

I went ahead and built the frame for that Act and redirected anything linked to the old nubs there. A similar proposal from the prior session, the RAVE Act, had a different author but its still somewhat redundant if not abandoned now that the matching incorporated language can be found under the proper heading(s) and as it was when passed into law. George Orwell III (talk) 09:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikisource:Proposed deletions