Wikisource:Proposed deletions

←Community pages

Proposed deletions

Archives (current)→

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).

Nominations

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

---

Empty pages

Amir E. Aharoni posted this on Scriptorium:

I ran some analyses on a dump of the English Wikisource and found a bunch of pages that have no text in them:

• User:Amire80/Empty pages

These are mostly file description pages with no description, and what's worse - with no licenses. Where it is possible, they should be moved to Commons and properly licensed and where it isn't possible, they should be deleted. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Copied here as it applies to proposed deletions. I think some can be speedy deleted but others may need further discussion. Some will need to be moved to Commons. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• There's a lot of work to do here. I've taken a look at a few and so far most have reasonably obvious tags or are apparent user creations, though the users may be retired. Some are probably copyvios. I suggest we move the page to a subpage here and add line breaks between the individual items so we can discuss them and track progress. I think we should also dump the contents of Category:Works_with_no_license_template onto the subpage too and scrub for dups.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:No_license contains nearly 450 pages.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Two subpages created:
    1. /Empty pages
    2. /Pages with no licence
  • All files are in bullet points so, as suggested, we can dicuss them individually. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• I made a first pass through everything, take a look and see what you want to try and rescue Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Empty pages. Jeepday (talk) 12:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

File:The Oxford Book of English Verse, 1250-1900 (1906).djvu

This seems to be the 1906 printing. We already have the 1931 printing at File:Oxford Book of English Verse 1250-1900.djvu (commons) and I'm not sure we need this impression as I can discern no content difference. If we are going to keep it, then it has several print pages missing and these will need to be found. Uploader has been notified of this discussion. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The last scanned page is numbered 1084 yet the entire djvu is only 1065 pages. Something doesn't jibe so leaning delete pending further discussion. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Leaning to delete too, though the reasoning for the licencing is interesting. I am wondering why the Don't move to Commons applies, and if it does apply how that effects the 1931 edition. I will presume that any pages that can be resurrected from this version will be so. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

fwiw.... If you follow the links to Archive.org's (cited as the source) frontpage, you'll see a blurb from 2 or 3 days ago claiming Google recently changed the viewing status (back?) to restricted (I can view the file on GoogleBooks just fine - U.S.A. proper here - though). I'm not sure what to make of the 'don't move' reasoning either way as well. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that the "don't move" is about Quiller-Couch's date of death (1944). 1944 + 70 years = 2014. But he's the editor and not the author of the work. Does this make a difference? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

He's the author of the preface, which is incomplete but partially present in this DJVU. Angr 17:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I've read an argument from a US lawyer that under w:Feist v. Rural and similar rulings, editors of novels and music and whatnot would have no copyright protection. Even if that's the case, Quiller-Couch did make creative choices in choosing which poems went into this anthology, and that would be protected for his life, even without the preface.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:35, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

List of Jewish deportees from Norway during World War II

This list has been created from several copyright sources and doesn't seem to be appropriate to host here. I think it belongs on Wikipedia but wanted to check first. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree that the list is not appropriate for our mainspace though I'm not sure any CopyVio has actually taken place. It's not 100% certain that the bulk if not all of the list was copied word-for-word from a single source or was compiled & created with the current layout for the first time from several sources, etc., by the contributing User: (& I'm guessing it is the latter - making it unacceptable for Wikipedia re: original research). That said, It might be enough to just move the list to a subpage of the User-space rather than whack it completely from here. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Babel - Users by language

I found this category while doing some maintenance (it was an orphan category) and I'm not sure what use it provides that other categories do not. On the other hand, it might have some purpose I can't see, so I don't want to do anything without checking first. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)