Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2008-08

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in August 2008, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Kept[edit]

The Internationale[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Withdrawn by nominator

This page was started in Multilingual Wikisource in 2004 then moved here after opening language subdomains. When looking at [1], the translated lyrics look like similar to but not identical as Martin Glasse's standard British version. Throughout the entire edit history, translators have never been identified, so it is hard to tell if Wikisource users made any translations there. After searching Google, who exactly Martin Glasse was cannot be easily found. The dates of publications are also unknown. For these reasons, I would like to ask if we should use Martin Glasse's lyrics or simply delete the page. Even if we do delete it, we still have The_Internationale_(Kerr) with known year of publication and authorship.--Jusjih 01:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I am withdrawing this while I have good reasons to believe that as Eugène Pottier fled to England and the United States, he might have understood English to some degree.--Jusjih 03:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Shared Copy[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Kept as incomplete text without strong consensus to delete it

This appears to be an extract from here. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

From the header:

extract from Kinross, Robin, “Fellow readers: notes on multiplied language” Hyphen Press, 1994. pps. 10–13;
reprinted in Kinross, Robin, “Unjustified texts: perspectives on typography”, Hyphen Press, 2002. pps. 342–346

Fairly clear copyvio, no permission, can be deleted. giggy (:O) 10:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I notified the contributor who added it. Deleted unless he provided sufficient information. Yann 09:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
we asked the author if we could add this extract and put it under the gnu license. he agreed. should we post this e-mail here? or how can we bring the prove? --Fellow Readers 13:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Send a mail to permissions(a)wikimedia.org Thanks for your help. Yann 13:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
done--Fellow Readers 13:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
We have received the permission and I have noted it on the talk page. Cbrown1023 02:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Extracts are not included in Wikisoure; Delete or Move to Wikiquote if it fits their inclusion policy.--BirgitteSB 03:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing q:Wikiquote:What Wikiquote is not, this extract does not seem to be excluded when copyright permission is received. However, as German Wikisource has it and Dutch Wikisource has it tagged for deletion without results, I lean to weak keep while I do not see extracts excluded per Wikisource:What is Wikisource? or Wikisource:What Wikisource includes.--Jusjih 01:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Kept as incomplete text. After receiving the copyright permission, there is no strong consensus to delete it. As deleting it here will break the interlanguage links, I am keeping it for now. While it will take a long time for it to enter PD, after that, further contents may be added then.--Jusjih 22:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Author:Marcellus II[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept

Yann 08:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This author doesn't appear to written any works, so this page probably should be deleted. Wild Wolf 21:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose, I highly doubt an educated man who served as the librarian of the Papal libraries never wrote a letter in his life. And even if not, we still have texts about him such as Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Pope Marcellus II which would be listed there. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Charles Spurgeon 21:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep (and improve); agree with Sherurcij. —Giggy 13:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • KeepZhaladshar (Talk) 13:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: If kept, it is not at all unlikely that the Catholic Encyclopedia article about him will be the only thing listed. While I'm sure he wrote something, it may well be the case that nothing he wrote has ever been translated into English. He seems to be rather obscure, especially since he was pope for only three weeks. Angr 13:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - author seems worthy of a page. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I would like Author pages should be renamed Person pages, so keep. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. "He was only pope for a few weeks" is one of the funnier non-notability arguments I've heard. :-D (no disrespect to Angr and yes I know that's not really what you meant). Hesperian 10:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The most important criterion for being an author is to have written something! It should then be a fairly easy criterion for a supporter to meet without speculating about whether he ever wrote anything. Works "about" the person do not meet this criterion; many non-authors have had works written about them. I avoid suggesting outright deletion at this point because I think that Marcellus has a better chance of meeting this criterion than some of his obscure mediæval predecessors who have been given author pages without any justification whatsoever. Eclecticology 22:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


Deleted[edit]

The Ultra-Complete Index[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted

Yann 08:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There are three pages called "The Ultra-Complete Index..", and they are all using invariant sections, which is against our policy, and none have the appearance of having been published, which puts them out of scope:

I also found w:User:Dyss#wikisource:The_Ultra-Complete_Index_to_Dirk_Gently.27s_Holistic_Detective_Agency which may be a completely useless piece of related info. I've emailed the authors. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I will happily (some might say, floopily) proceed to change the licensing terms of the present text and remove the invariant sections so that it may be moved to wikibooks, as discussed with Jo{h}n by e-mail. --mathiasmaul 10:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly for Wikibooks.--Poetlister 12:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikibooks is for collaboratively-edited textbooks (including annotated texts). I don't see how this is an annotated text. Maybe I'm missing something, but this is a list of where certain terms appear in the books? – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
It is a reference work, and if it goes on Wikibooks maybe people will collaborate to improve it. My point is that it shouldn't be here! --Poetlister 11:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe if it goes into Wikipedia someone will work on it. Maybe if it stayed here people would work on it. Both are probably true, but it doesn't mean that it belongs here! Wikipedia is a reference work too, but you'll note that Wikibooks is not Wikipedia. Wiktionary is a reference work, but we're not Wiktionary either! (etc...) Just because it doesn't belong here doesn't mean it automatically belongs at Wikibooks. We have an inclusion policy just like every other project; please respect it just like we respect the inclusion policies of every other project. Since this doesn't fit your inclusion policy, you might ask if Wikiversity would like this; theirs is rather liberally applied, and covers a wide range of materials. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined to think that this is a thing that should exist, and Wikisource seems to fit it best of the Wikimedia projects. It doesn't really seem aligned with the goals of Wikiversity or Wikibooks to me, and an index to a nonlocal work isn't exactly encyclopedic. 24.17.94.40 22:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC) netcrusher88@en.wp
It definitely does not belong in Wikipedia, and neither does it fit with the scopes of this project. I am unfamiliar with the policies of Wikiversity or Wikibooks, but dmcdevit will chuck a fit if it makes its way into wiktionary... —Dark talk 10:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I, unfortunately, can't see that it fits into any Wikimedia project. I would have thought Wikibooks, but if Mike says it doesn't then I don't know. We could ask the individual projects if they want to take it, but I think we'll need to delete it from here at some point, regardless. —Giggy 08:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Deleted. This discussion has been here since April, so decisive action is warranted. Whether other projects will accept this work is entirely up to them. I note that I supported it in 2004, but that was at a time when a lot of these inclusion criteria were not solidified. Copyrights and prior publication were not a factor in my decision. What was most convincing for me was that it does not make sense to include an index to a work when we cannot host the underlying work. Eclecticology 22:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

IN THE MATTER OF: STEPHEN GLOVER ROWE, D.M.D. License No.: 4121[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted

Yann 08:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I checked for references online, and could not validate the reality of this page, Additionally I checked for anything public supporting the claims of the page and could not find anything, recomend delete as possible hoax and clear BLP violation, WS does not need to be the only online source for this even if it is real. Jeepday (talk) 03:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Leaning toward delete, but I would hesitate to call it a hoax in the absence of positive evidence to that effect. The licensing board in question surely has this kind of case with some degree of frequency, and may indeed have public archives of this sort of decision. I also don't think that we should be importing Wikipedia's subjective BLP policies. Our previously published criterion is more than adequate. On the other hand, the ruling seems to revolve more on Rowe's personal life, rather than any attempt to include this as a part of any systematic documentation of such rulings about otherwise unconnected individuals. The document was contributed last February, and the editor has not worked on any other Wikisource article whatsoever. It seems then that this contribution was made solely out of a narrow personal interest. I would be interested to hear any arguments for keeping this, but unless there is at least one significant contributor willing to champion this article it should be deleted. Eclecticology 06:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless pagescans are given as verification, it is an allegation that is a BLP issue. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, Wikisource shouldn't follow this logic and here is why ! (Stan_En) (in WP) --88.70.7.16 00:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Eek. Not pretty. I'd agree that a delete sooner rather than later would be a darn good idea. —Giggy 10:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. Contributor failed to respond to inquiry within ample time. Eclecticology 05:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

State Department History of the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted

Yann 08:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Been tagged as a possible hoax since feb 2008, there are some comments at Talk:State Department History of the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict. The source is not confirmed and it does not appear possible to confirm the source. Jeepday (talk) 03:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete I have been waiting for clarification by email since it was first uploaded. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Deleted. The contributor has had ample time to provide the requested substantiation. Eclecticology 22:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Other[edit]

Undeleting Goldman's Durruti[edit]

The following discussion is closed: restored

Yann 22:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations/Archives/2006-04#Durruti_is_Dead.2C_Yet_Living

Durruti is Dead, Yet Living was published in 1936 by Author:Emma Goldman, who does not appear to have registered any of her copyrights (being an anarchist, not surprising), and Stanford confirms that she definitely didn't renew any copyrights. Thus this text is PD. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Augustus John Cuthbert Hare

  • Undelete. Project Gutenberg lists all copyright renewals for 1950-1977 (for works originally published 1923-1950), independently of Stanford's listing. Gutenberg's list yields renewal records for periodicals, pamphlets, drama, artwork, etc., whereas Stanford lists only books. Gutenberg confirms that no copyrights were renewed for Emma Goldman's works. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 13:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Undelete No copyright issue.--Poetlister 18:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Suggest undeleting, no contrary opinions in nearly three months. Daniel (talk) 11:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Two questions need to be answered: what country was she a citizen of, and where was it published? It looks like she was living in Europe at the time, and had been for quite a while. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
She claimed American citizenship based on the fact her father moved to the United States from Lithuania and received citizenship - during their attempts to deport the "troublemaker", the US government argued she was not a citizen since her father's citizenship had later been revoked. Basically, there is no "right" answer to the question as I understand it. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Percival Lowell 01:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
We could ignore her citizenship if she is not known to have later been granted citizenship in another country. We still need to know where this was published, as that determines the jurisdiction that applies. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
WP Biography says she spent her last three years living in Canada, writing articles for US publications. Her work is PD under Canadian copyright law (PMA+50), and is PD under US copyright law (unrenewed) - either way, this work should be undeleted. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:John McCain and Author:Barack Obama 02:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
If published in the US, did the original have a copyright notice, as required at the time? Eclecticology 06:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
No idea, can't find an original pagescan or anything. But regardless of whether it did or not, I believe it meets PD criteria since it doesn't seem to have been renewed. At this point the onus would be on proving any copyright, not on proving PD. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:John McCain and Author:Barack Obama 07:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

template:Legislation-UKGov[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Redirected.

I have merged this with template:UK-Crown-waiver, no pages now use the template I am proposing be deleted. We have had two very similar templates for a while now.

John Cross 11:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Redirect. Deleting it will cause several broken links.--Jusjih 22:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)