Wikisource:Proposed deletions

From Wikisource
(Redirected from Wikisource:DEL)
Jump to: navigation, search
Proposed deletions
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. What Wikisource includes is the policy used to determine whether or not particular works are acceptable on Wikisource. 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).

Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days. For the archive overview, see /Archives.


Nominations[edit]

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



Author-based poem categories[edit]

{{section resolved|1=''' —''' [[User:Mr. Guye|Mr. Guye]] ([[User talk:Mr. Guye|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Mr. Guye|contribs]])  08:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)}}

This section has been concluded as "deleted", but deletion is still in progress because it's a long and annoying task. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The following author-based categories are of the sort that are usually deleted by consensus:

Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Categories that are <form> by <author> should not exist. These are two separate category trees on Wikisource. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
There are two more in case of deletion: Category:Poems by Catullus + Category:Poems by John Donne.— Mpaa (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Agree to remove, noting that they will need to be replaced with something like Category:Russian poetry]]. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
They are subcats of Category:Russian poetry, but yeah the pages in the categories will have to be moved there before the subcats are deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Similarly, there is Category:John Boyle O'Reilly poems‎ as well. Maybe we should get rid of Category:Poems by author entirely? The only item in that category that is worth categorizing as such is Category:Poems written by children. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Category:Poems written by children can exist without being a subcat of Category:Poems by author, which is a misleading supercat anyway, since "children" is a type of author, not a particular author. BD2412 T 13:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Why is it desirable to have a "Poems written by children" cat? Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm ambivalent, but I think the point being made is that it does not run afoul of the particular issue under consideration in this thread, as that category name is not constructed in the same pattern. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I found some more such categories.

Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The Cat:Executive orders and also Proclamations I'm divided in opinion. These are effectively subcategories divided by governmental administrations. They could just as easily be said to be divided by years, and although they could be renamed that way, it is usually much more useful to have then identified by which US president headed that administration. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with you, even though they fit the same pattern. Do you think Presidential memoranda, determinations, radio addresses, notices, and possibly speeches should be kept for the same reason? If not, why? I'm not American and I'm not really familiar with US Presidential official writings. Also keeping in mind that if such American presidential categories are okay, then so are similar categories for presidents, monarchs, and other officials in any country whatsoever. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I would argue that it's not the ruler that's the organizing principle here, but the administration, and a government is not always tied to a particular monarch. In the UK, older documents might indeed be organized by monarch, but only where there is a fixed and established set of official forms of documents to organize under such. But in modern UK, for example, it would not be suitable to have categories for George V, or Elizabeth II, as they are not the head of the UK government. Rather, UK administration is tied to the prime minister. So if we were to extend this principle, it would make more sense to organize by Thatcher, Major, Blair, Cameron, etc. However, I'm not certain whether the PM of the UK issues executive decisions in the same way that a US president does, and certainly did not do so if you go back far enough.
I am not certain that radio addresses should be kept, even for US presidents, as they do not hold the weight found in executive orders or determinations. Those latter are both instruments of executive power, which a radio address is not. This issue is probably one that will need some discussion, some consensus, and a written guideline that we can then point to in future. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I only created the categories because there was no place to put them and other U.S. Presidents have some of the same categories. As for the U. K., I'd say it would be under the Prime Minister once they were head of the government. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Principles of Political Economy[edit]

Note: the work in question is now located at Principles of Political Economy (Malthus). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

This page has an inadequate amount of content to be kept.Mr. Guye 01:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The page was just started, and it's actively growing. So there's no reason to delete at this time. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Scan of 2nd ed: https://archive.org/details/principlesofpoli00malt Hrishikes (talk) 01:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
We should definitely be working to a scan for such a renowned work. Little value in bringing in a text only, we may as well just link to one. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
The author page has links to scans for the 2nd edition and for the 1st US edition, but not for the original UK edition. If someone does locate a scan, we can do a match-and-split. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
We should not do a match and split for such works. It has long been discussed and proposed that without edition data that match and split is problematic, and the community at those earlier times had a tacit agreement to abide by that point of view. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I suppose this is about Principles_of_Political_Economy_(Malthus) ? --Dick Bos (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes it is. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The 1st UK edition is here, but the TOC on our version does not match the pagination of that edition; it matches the pagination of the 2nd edition that Hrishikes listed above. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

File:HRPEvidenceBook.pdf[edit]

File was moved from Commons, but basically issues from c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:HRPEvidenceBook.pdf need to be solved. Either the unfree images mentioned cut from the PDF and new version reuploaded while old revdeleted, or as per Wikisource:Copyright policy#Fair use it should go away. --Base (talk) 11:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The scan of the work is the scan as has been released and is the copy of the text. I would Symbol keep vote.svg Keep for the file, and the reproduced text. The issue of any claimed images is related to the discussion on WS:S about the proposed change on exemptions to copyright where they are part of a reproduced work, so images for me are undetermined. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

{{PD-KP-exempt}}[edit]

Non-commercial restriction makes it incompatible with Wikisource's CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. Prosody (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

It wouldn't be applicable to us anyway; it's not the type of thing that would be relevant in a case in a US court. Definitely delete.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
The work to which it is attached also needs a check. Not sufficient information at the moment for any sort of judgement. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
It appears that the noncommercial clause was added to DPRK law in 2006, after the 1996 URAA cutoff, so Aegukka (1945) should still be hostable as {{PD-1996}}. It appears to still be under copyright in source country. See relevant discussions: w:Talk:Aegukka#Copyright status of Aegukka, w:Talk:Aegukka#Copyright status updated, Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-DPRKGov, Commons:Deletion requests/File:The National Anthem of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (Converted MIDI).ogg. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how the noncommercial clause is relevant. It doesn't affect whether or not the work is copyrighted, so it would have no effect in US law.
Also, the URAA date for North Korea would be in 2003, because that's when North Korea first signed the Berne Convention, the first copyright treaty they had with the US. 1996 is only for countries that had signed the Berne Convention or the WTO at that point. Afghanistan, for example, has a URAA date in 2016.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Hm, I think I see what you're getting at. If the work was PD in the PDRK in 2003 (URAA date) then it's PD in the US currently. If the work was copyrighted but permission given to use and distribute the work for any purpose, then in 2006 that permission was restricted to noncommercial use only—then the work is copyrighted in the USA, and if we are bound to follow what is essentially a relicensing in 2006, then the work needs to be deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete along with Aegukka. The works in question are not public domain, but rather copyrighted and freely usable, which means the URAA would not have applied and the non-commercial clause is still in effect. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Politics of the United States/Carl Schurz[edit]

And its subcategories. More categorization by author, which is superfluous to listings at Author:Carl Schurz. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg KeepQuestion Question. For the reasons on my talk page. There are a LOT of articles related to Carl Schurz and the category becomes hard to navigate without. If this subcategory is deleted, I recommend an improved sorting of the parent category to improve readability. Would this be possible? Are there alternatives that should be looked at?MattLongCT (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Keep. . . why? Why should this topic be subcategorized by author? Why should two different methods of categorizing be mixed? What reason for changing the established practise do you offer?
As for sorting: Some of them are about race relations; some are about the "Indian Problem", and those would be separate categories in which to place the items, according to the specific topics addressed. Quite a few of these items are not about US politics, and don't belong in that category. The Letters and Addresses would appear in those categories. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per nom. Green Giant (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I think perhaps this should be clarified(what is and isn't included), possibly renamed, and made a subcatergory of the authour page. JustinCB (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete @JustinCB, @MattLongCT: Firstly we don't make "category subpages", categories should just be categories—they stack within a hierarchy. So the process used is problematic.

Secondly re listing on author pages. After trials in the early days the community determined that it is our preference to not categorise works by an author, instead we manually curate works as the detail was needed. It also led to a lot of ugly categories. There is a range of scope available to deal with listings through author subpages.

We do also have mw:Extension:Extension:DynamicPageList (Wikimedia) installed were you to want to undertake intersects of categories. If you are looking for a working example, please see something like Portal:1903. We do under utilise the tool. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't really mean "subcategory", but subpage, that is, the content of the page should be clarified what is and isn't part of it, & those pages that aren't should be moved somewhere else on the author page or a subpage thereof, and the others moved to another subpage of the author's page. So Author:Carl Schurz/Political Writings or something like that & Author:Carl Schurz/Race Relations or Author:Carl Schurz/Writings Related to but not Politics or something like that if there are too many for to be listed legibly on his Author page alone. JustinCB (talk) 12:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
@JustinCB: We give flexibility in that regard to intelligent decision making where the production suits a page output. There are a variety of appraoches. have a look at some of the American president pages/subpages. Or have a look at what Londonjackbooks has done with Author:Florence Earle Coates and special:PrefixIndex/Author:Florence Earle Coatesbillinghurst sDrewth 12:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:PD-Afghanistan[edit]

This was once a valid template, but Afghanistan has adopted a life+50 copyright law[1], and has joined the WTO[2] as of July 29, 2016 and thus that is the URAA date for Afghanistan; all Afghani works published by authors alive in 1966 or later are now copyright in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Prior to that discussion, we should be relicensing existing works, and dealing with the template to find out whether we have suitable existing templates to cater for the works, or we need to update this template for specificity. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Chronological Table and Index of the Statutes[edit]

Same problem as above namely, an experimental layout that refuses to behave nicely when trying to tag match it so it behaves consistently. Delete and let's start again with ONE approach that works consistently in ALL namespaces. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a work with a scan back. I'd need a lot more reason to delete than a desire to standardize a layout approach. The best place for such a discussion is Index talk:Chronological Table and Index of the Statutes.djvu. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:Framed page[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: kept, in use
Used to mark that a page has a frame, which isn't necessarily relevant to text transcription or web presentation. Could easily be automatically removed from tagged Pages: and deleted.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep While some editors will skip some framing elements (and other typographic ornaments), there is no consensus that these elements are irrelevant—and sometimes they are definitely relevant (Example 1, Example 2). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Statute table templates..[edit]

I.e {{Statute table}} and various related linked sub-pages thereof, as well as page content which makes use of them.

These are proposed for deletion on the basis that they have become too complicated to be reasonably maintained or expanded upon. Nor can they be cleanly substed to improve performance. Only 2 works affected, both of which I contributed extensively (see relevant thread previously), and which I have no problems in also being deleted, given that the current level of complexity in how they are coded. These templates are also not necessarily compatible with the parser migration (and the replacement parser), and for these reasons it would be easier to start afresh with a "clean" version that's properly specified (and gives a consistent rendering across multiple namespaces), rather than having a number of pages break suddenly.

Despite the valid comments made elsewhere about retaining "broken layouts", In this instance I feel that starting again with a fresh approach would be the best course of action, given that it's unreasonable to expect overly complex templates to be supported.

Alternatively, if someone is prepared to loose their sanity trying to figure out all the interactions, I would have no objections to the template being simplified so it can be subst cleanly.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Withdrawn per a previous decision about in-use templates.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Index talk:Darbar-e-Akbari WDL9691.pdf & Index:Darbar-e-Akbari WDL9691.pdf[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: speedy deleted, as author's request
Not English, Author Requested, etc.

MattLongCT (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Index:4test01.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: withdrawn
Delete per WS:CSD#G1 as an obvious test page.MattLongCT (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep This is used to test changes to the proofreadpage. It is deliberately there. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Withdrawn MattLongCT (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Recollections of Homo sapiens 호모사피엔스의 기억[edit]

This is a poem by a Korean church minister, that has been translated to English, with both original and translation licence saying {{PD-release}} though there is no source, nor evidence of release. There is not even the indication that the work is published. To be retained we will need the evidence that it is published, and OTRS for both the Korean language and English language versions.

If we delete the poem if there is no evidence of the work being released, then the author page will also face same result. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Korean Wikisource only has works the author signed, not wrote; see [3]. If this is a wiki translation, we should be working from a page on ko.ws, as I believe was generally agreed upon. If the English translation was a published work, one appropriate OTRS should do.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
There is also this poem: The six tailbone of the Cenozoic era 신생대의 여섯 번째 꼬리뼈Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete as unattributed translation. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Index:History of Willamette Railroad.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: speedy deletion, redundant — billinghurst sDrewth 22:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
This index was created to support Oregon Historical Quarterly/Volume 20/History of the narrow gauge railroad in the Willamette Valley. At the time, I did not realize there was a full scan of the journal's entire volume available: Index:Oregon Historical Quarterly vol. 20.pdf

I have moved all the pages to the full volume, and this index is now redundant. I think it's pretty straightforward decision to delete the index and the pages/redirects here. Whether or not I should propose the supporting file for deletion at Commons, I'm less sure...I'd appreciate guidance on that. -Pete (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I would support deleting the file at Commons too, unless you can see a purpose for retention. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:John Brown (abolitionist)[edit]

Wikisource does not support Author-based categories. However, I am opening a discussion in case someone is willing to set up a Portal prior to deletion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

They can all be listed on the author page, no need for a portal. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Some of the articles are not written by Brown nor actually about him per se, but about the Harper's Ferry Event. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Portal for Harper's Ferry event? (whatever it is?) Or a category for that, if it makes sense to have a loose cat. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg DeleteBeleg Tâl (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Tomino's Hell[edit]

  • Uncertain sourcing; no evidence that the English version is published
  • No translator, and the copyright declaration is dubious
  • if it is a current "free" translation, then the work belongs in the Translation: ns
  • the Japanese/English is out of scope.

We need to manage these works of uncertain origin that are popping up, and from IP addresses where you cannot follow-up. Having to chase down the uploader is time-consuming and having to bring each here, one by one, and repeat the explanation is similarly problematic. We may wish to draft some guidance for foreign language works like these, and allow them to be speedy-deleted, though mindfully pointed to our explanatory text, and not preventing reintroduction when demonstrably within scope. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete: it's a common copypasta, so the translator is probably impossible to identify, and the work is extremely unlikely to have been explicitly released under a free licence or dedicated to the public domain. "No original authorship" doesn't make sense in this context. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I can't confirm the publication year; there's a w:Inuhiko Yomota ("Yomota Inuhiko" Japanese-style, as per our author) who was born in 1953. I'm not even sure the underlying work is PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
The Japanese poem appears to be from the collection Sakin (1919) by Saijo Yaso, so it's PD in the USA though not in Japan until 2020 (1970+50). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Our version, and the story floating around the net, attaches the author name Yomota Inuhiko to it and an earlier publication than Sakin. Given the way it's copy and pasted, and any details added to juice the story instead for factual support, I just don't feel comfortable with even that. Otherwise, we should move the Japanese to Wikisource.org.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Days of War, Nights of Love[edit]

An incomplete work that has been for 10 years. The source link is dead (talk page), if it even ever contained the work, and there is no free copy available on the website. There has to be a point where we pull the pin on an abandoned work. If it is ever text supported, or there is evidence that the text is available for reproduction, then we can undelete and reproduce. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Noting that files with the names are contained

if we believe that these works are public domain they then need information template added, and moved to Commons; otherwise deleted. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Scan available here. That being said, it appears to be self-published and is probably out of scope. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of author based categories[edit]

I think that author-based categories should be deletable under the speedy deletion policy so that we don't have to raise a discussion every time one pops up. They probably fall under rationale G5 (beyond scope) so the policy itself wouldn't need to be modified. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)