Wikisource:Proposed deletions

From Wikisource
(Redirected from Wikisource:DEL)
Jump to navigation Jump to 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 Copyright discussions. 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.


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


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)
Since the discussion referred to above ended without reaching a conclusion, and nobody has stepped up to redact the non-free images, I say we delete this now. It's outside policy and has been sitting there for two years now. --Xover (talk) 07:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete And looking closer, redacting this will be a pain: in addition to the two photographs identified as examples at Commons, and assuming every sorta space-y photo is a NASA photo, there are a ton of charts and plots that are taken from other non-NASA reports and journal articles. The first few such I spotted weren't available online so it's hard to determine licensing for certain, but it seems unlikely that all of them will be under a compatible license, and tracking all of them down would be a lot of work. Nobody has worked on this project since 2012, when 10–15 pages were proofread, nor has anyone expressed an interest in working on it in the year and a half it's been nominated for deletion. I say we nuke it entire now, and if anybody wants to upload a redacted version to work on we can undelete the few existing pages then. --Xover (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


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)
  • Ugh. I think we have a problem here. Checking Category:PD-Afghan it seems it's mostly Bin Laden / Taliban letters, communiques, etc.; and a couple of Karzai speeches. All of them from over the last two-ish decades. Afghanistan enacted a copyright law in 2008 (pma. 50, essentially), and it was retroactive and has no provisions ala. PD-AfghanGov. When they joined the WTO in 2016, every Afghan work whose author was not dead by 1966 (or anonymous works published after 1966) became copyrighted in Afghanistan and (through the URAA) in the US. Based on a cursory check, that's every single work in that category (only 15 total, but still)! I see no way around nuking all of them. Anyone else? --Xover (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
    Just noting that Template:PD-Unjust is equally affected. --Xover (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
    Which affects only one work: A Call to Jihad to End the Aggression against Gaza by Bin Laden. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Note To the best of my understanding, all works currently in this category are both copyright violations in a legal sense, and are in conflict with our copyright policy. If nobody objects or comes up with a credible loophole in the next couple of days I feel I am obligated to delete all these works and the two mentioned templates (they are no longer valid, per Prosfilaes above). I don't want to be that delete-happy admin, but I can't see any room neither legally nor policy-wise too keep these. --Xover (talk) 09:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    Are any of them covered by {{IEEPA}}? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    They might be, but the IEEPA is essentially a fair use claim, which also makes it incompatible with our policy. In fact, we shouldn't even have a {{IEEPA}} license template nor any files whose sole claim to copyright policy compliance rests on the IEEPA. --Xover (talk) 06:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    I don't understand the law or the concept of "blocked property" well enough to understand why this is a fair use claim rather than a exempt-from-copyright claim, but you may be right. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    The IEEPA is a federal law that essentially allows POTUS to declare a specific kind of emergency and, while that state of emergency obtains, to seize the assets of and regulate trade (a power normally reserved for Congress) with, the targets of that emergency. The targets are typically rogue or hostile nations (Iran, Afghanistan, etc.) or designated terrorist organisations (Hezbollah, al Qaida, etc.). The law also makes it a federal crime to circumvent the seizures or regulations enacted under the law. It does not at all address copyright, except insofar as copyright is an asset that can be seized or regulated. That is, the IEEPA actually does not affect copyright at all.
    The IEEPA does, however, contain an exception for transporting information (it also excepts luggage for personal use: it's weirdly specific!) which is not to be criminalised as "illegal trade" (or "trade in blocked property"). What {{IEEPA}} actually asserts is that since the text we host here is just information, we should not be put in jail for conspiring to violate the IEEPA. That's actually not even true: if our reusers attempt to exploit the text commercially they will be prosecuted (as Javed Iqbal learned the hard way). We might conceivably have a similar liability (we're just too small fish for anyone to bother frying).
    But the bottom line is that the IEEPA does not affect copyright status one way or the other, so {{IEEPA}} is not a valid license template. --Xover (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    So when it talks about blocking all rights or privileges related to the property in question—not only does this not include copyright, but in fact that entire clause does not apply to information at all? In that case, it seems to me that the claim of {{IEEPA}} that "any corresponding copyright is 'blocked property' in the United States" is categorically incorrect, and in that case I would agree that the template and any documents that depend on it must be deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    There's a long version of this reply (available on request), but the short version is: IEEPA does not invalidate any existing copyright, and §1702(b)(3) is an exception that does not apply to things like terrorist propaganda. Iqbal was convicted in 2008 and faced up to 15 years in prison (I haven't been able to track down the actual sentence); and our situation is absolutely analogous on anything tagged with {{IEEPA}}. --Xover (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of author based categories[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived :
Proposal opened on WS:S. --Xover (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

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)

Agreed but perhaps a new G8 criterion? Green Giant (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
There was a general discussion here to which we can link. If we are going to add it to the criterion, then we need to have supportive documentation of why they are out of scope for what wikisource includes, and how we explain the few that escape the reasoning. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't the policy apply more broadly to person-based categories, not merely authors? -Pete (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, it should be all person-based categories. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Xover (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Offences Against The Person Act, 1861 (repealed)[edit]

A collection of extracts from the (complete and scan-backed) Offences against the Person Act 1861. The extracts consist of those portions of the original Act that “have been repealed and no longer represent the current law.” Putting aside for the moment the difficulty of keeping such a listing current (have no other portions of the underlying statute been repealed since Offences Against The Person Act, 1861 (repealed) was posted here a decade ago?), I question whether our own original listing of repealed statutes satisfies WS:WWI. Of course, if the UK Parliament issued a publication enumerating which portions of its Offences against the Person Act 1861 were no longer in force, I would see no problem with reproducing that document here. But Offences Against The Person Act, 1861 (repealed) doesn’t seem to be anyone’s work but our own and there is no indication that it was previously published. Tarmstro99 18:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Could this be updated to be essentially an annotated version of Offences against the Person Act 1861? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps more to the point: is anybody actually willing to do that work? I think part of Tarmstro99's concern was that we would need to also complete and maintain such a listing, and II don't see anybody stepping up to do so. Nor even show up too object to its proposed deletion. Hence my position below. --Xover (talk) 09:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
We don't have a policy requiring our annotated versions to be complete or maintained. Just move Offences Against The Person Act, 1861 (repealed) to Offences against the Person Act 1861/Annotated, put a header on it, and link it with {{annotation header}}, and voilà. No harder than actually deleting it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Per nom, and my reply to Beleg Tâl above. --Xover (talk) 09:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep because as an annotated text it violates no policies —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Historic American Engineering Record - Boston Elevated Railway Company photographs and information[edit]

A decade-old cut-and-paste job with copious OCR errors; would require significant cleanup work to make presentable. The accompanying talk page appears to be a personal note from a reader expressing appreciation for the text. I think I have located a scan of the original document here, but the scan includes hundreds of pages of appendices (containing photos, drawings, tables, and other information) not provided in our version. There is also this page which appears to include not only the scanned original document, but also clearer versions of the embedded photographs. It would surely be possible for an editor interested in the subject to combine the scanned text with the linked photographs to produce a version of the document far superior to that presently posted here. In its existing state, however, Historic American Engineering Record - Boston Elevated Railway Company photographs and information adds little of value to our collection and should be deleted. Tarmstro99 00:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

If we're sure either of those is the same "edition" (even if the indices are additional material not previously included -- maybe the original cut-n-paster didn't want to deal with complex data grids?), then possibly we could go the match-and-split route? --Mukkakukaku (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I did match-and-split on a text like this recently, with zero proofreading and tons of OCR crap, and based on my experience I would far rather proofread from scratch than from this. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
don’t know if i want to delete a cut and paste, without a scanned-backed to replace it. there are photos mass uploaded here c:Category:Historic American Engineering Record,
i would support a demonstration of an example here, given the large amount of material in HAER, that would support historic structures. Slowking4SvG's revenge 22:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I am a near-total amateur and came across this page while searching for material about Boston's Highland Railroad -- which I have yet to find. Even though it is far from pretty and almost totally obsolete, I would recommend keeping this because it does contain important information that would be very challenging to find elsewhere -- if it even still exists elsewhere. (For information and bemusement, starting in the 1870s, the Highland Railroad ran plaid horsecars from Grove Hall in Boston's Roxbury neighborhood to downtown Boston and beyond with a frequency of at least 1 every 8 minutes, which is far more frequent than the current service in 2019 and did not also call for a transfer. 2601:182:CB00:300B:344A:8F35:472:DA3 20:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Ed Allan

Index:Coleridge - La Chanson du vieux marin, trad. Barbier, 1877.djvu[edit]

Barbier translation of the Ancient Mariner, This should be on fr.wikisource? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

It is on French Wikisource . The English text is in it too. That might be why we find it here too.. --Zyephyrus (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
But on frws only the French text is transcribed. p.11 here used to have the English text and then the French iwpage'ed in, but someone removed the iwpage. Is this something we want to host here, and if so, with or without iwpage'ed French text? My immediate thought is that hosting it without the French is kinda pointless, as there are much better English-language editions (and this transcription project seems to be abandoned after doing just the one page anyway). But would that be an appropriate inclusion of a non-English work? This is a French work that happens to include some English, rather than vice versa. --Xover (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. It's a rather fine line, since we do often host bilingual editions. However, I would consider this particular edition to be a French work rather than a bilingual work, since the English text is presented in the form of a gloss rather than as part of the work itself, and the work is clearly intended for a French audience. If frWS doesn't want to fully host it, I think mulWS is the place for it. It might be worth involving frWS in the discussion. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
@VIGNERON: Can you provide some insight here? --Xover (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
@Xover: I would rather say Symbol keep vote.svg Keep, @Beleg Tâl: this is a bilingual text. True the presentation of English text is smaller (almost illegible) and placed as paratext but it's the full text (plus it's the original text as this is an English work). Anyway, even if it's deleted here, I would still very strongly advise against putting the English text on French Wikisource (which is meant to host texts in French languages), especially as it is already transcribed multiple times on : The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, so yes would be the solution (but it sounds quite strange, why not host the English text on English Wikisource?!?). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 13:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
@VIGNERON: to me the fact that the English text is paratext is reason enough to not host it on English Wikisource. When we add English works with French paratext, we generally host the French paratext here on English Wikisource, rather than offloading it to French Wikisource. Does French Wikisource have a policy that prevents them from hosting their own paratext if the paratext is not in French? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: not a policy but a strong habit. And sometimes, we do also host paratext in foreign language when it's short, but - AFAIK - not when it's the entire original text. That said, I'll ask on the French Scriptorium to have more point of view (edit: done here fr:Wikisource:Scriptorium/Juillet_2019#Texte_bilingue) so until then, I suggest to put this request on hold. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@VIGNERON, @Beleg Tâl: My French is a bit, ah, "rusty"… Was this resolved in the discussion on frws, or do we need to keep this open a while longer? --Xover (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Xover: No resolution yet. Just a rehash of the discussion here, and some technical resolution of a formatting problem that had stalled proofreading. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Index:The Maine woods.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived :
Kept, different edition. --Xover (talk) 13:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate of Index:The Maine Woods (1864).djvu (which has been fully validated) but with damaged source file. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Different publisher, not a duplicate. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, definitely different editions. --Xover (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Xover (talk) 13:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The Prince (Marriott)[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived :
Deleted, and scan-backed version moved into its place. --Xover (talk) 07:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Redundant to - The Prince (translated by William K. Marriott) which scan backed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Since you started a discussion I'm not going to start wading in there, but doesn't this fall under WS:CSD G4? I also see you've tagged some, but not nearly all, subpages of it with {{sdelete}}. Did you perhaps mean to use {{delete}}? At least to me it makes no sense to do both: either it's proposed deletion or it is a request for speedy deletion. --Xover (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes my mistake, but very probably G4.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete It's not exactly the same edition; note that the final line of The Prince (Marriott)/The Man and His Work references a work published 1929, whereas The Prince (translated by William K. Marriott) was published 1908. However, given that it's incomplete, it's not scan backed, it's likely a composite edition given that it's from Gutenberg, and it may very well contain copyvio editorial content given the post-1929 publication date, I support deleting it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Also, I think that The Prince (translated by William K. Marriott) should be moved without redirect to The Prince (Marriott), since the latter is the established location of the text, and is more inline with our naming conventions. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per Beleg Tâl. --Xover (talk) 05:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per Beleg Tâl. Just came across this from another work mentioning this translation. --Einstein95 (talk) 07:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Xover (talk) 07:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

William Kolakoski[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived :
Deleted. --Xover (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I can find no source for this text, nor any reason to consider it freely licensed. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete The source is most likely The William Kolakoski Collection at Carnegie Mellon University Libraries, or, to be more accurate, it is probably either from Mike Vargo or Clark Kimblering by way of someone wishing to memorialize Kolakoski (quite possibly one of them personally). The Wikipedia article on him has the same tone ("… known as Bill to family and friends …"), and is supported by a single citation to "Personal communication from Jim Vargo to Clark Kimberling in 2001"). IOW, I'd say this is both copyvio and out of scope. --Xover (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Likely copyvio, clearly out of scope. BD2412 T 19:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it clearly out of scope; I'd happily host a eulogy and some emails provided they are properly licensed and sourced. In this case however, it appears to be neither of those. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Xover (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Collaptogg list[edit]

Unused experimental template (abandoned GOIII project), untouched since 2010, that also does not appear to have ever actually worked. --Xover (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Bryan's dictionary of painters and engravers, 1903-1905[edit]

Two page excerpt from a five volume work. Would be preferable to add the full Dictionary of Painters and Engravers, but this would be an enormous undertaking. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete A random two-page excerpt without a scan or index seems rather pointless. --Xover (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


Proposed for deletion on the grounds that it makes harder to actually figure out where a page is faulty.

ONE logic path for the behavior of a rendered page, makes it far far simpler to find out WHY and WHERE a Lint concern ACTUALLY broke a page, without having to run around chasing down two different versions of page determined by where it's being transcluded/rendered, through use of this template.

Deletion of this template is recommended in the interests of simplicity and sanity. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Prompted by An_Essay_in_Defence_of_the_Female_Sex/Section_8/Modern which is complaining about "Mis-nesting", which is next to IMPOSSIBLE to pin down with this Template in the markup.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete in favour of sanity and simplicity, PROVIDED that this template is first removed from all instances where it is currently used, and a reasonable alternative method of annotating these texts is implemented instead. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
FYI, the lint errors weren't caused by this template, they were caused by splitting italics across a template open like this:
This would break for any template that open a div, as the opening <i> is in the parent element, and the closing </i> will be in the tag provided by the template:
Some new-lines might make that work more "sane" as it's a pain to edit, but it's not an issue woth {{modern}} specifically - it would have happened with {{smaller block}} too! As I mentioned previously on the Scriptorium, methodical bisection of the text makes it easy to pin down the offending content. Delete half, see if it fixed it, if yes, the error is in the deleted text, if no, it's in the undeleted half. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Category:EB1911:Geographic Features:Mountains:Europe and Category:EB1911:Geographic Features:Mountains should be deleted[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived :
Speedied under G4/M1. --Xover (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

These two empty categories should be deleted, they are covered by c:Category:EB1911:Mountains:Europe and c:Category:EB1911:Mountains. DivermanAU (talk) 07:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@DivermanAU: These were obviously outside the defined EB1911 category hierarchy, and redundant with local categories in the proper place in the hierarchy. So I've slightly boldly gone ahead and speedied both under a combination of G4 (redundant) and M1 (process deletions): they look essentially like typo creations that are left behind after moving to the correct category names (since categories can't be moved like pages can). If anyone disagrees I'll be happy to undelete. --Xover (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Xover (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your swift action! DivermanAU (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


This template is not currently transcluded anywhere on the project—and as best I can tell never has been—and was imported from enwp (over an older WS-specific template) by John Vandenberg in 2008 based on a WS:S discussion where it was brought up as one possible solution. Apart from a few discussion pages that link to it, and See also links from the docs for {{familytree}} and {{chart2}}, it's not used anywhere on the project. So far as I know it's been entirely obsoleted by Chart2, and all these are likely to be even more obsoleted once the WMF eventually gets around to start pushing their horribly overengineered modern and powerful general chart solution.

This template and all its myriad subtemplates are currently generating about a hundred lint errors. --Xover (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Did you mean Extension:Graph which seems more concerned with data charts, or Extension:Graphviz for things more like org charts and family trees? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
The former. See e.g. task T137291. The Chart extension seems likely to be the new basis for all such functionality eventually (but probably not very soon: there still aren't dedicated resources assigned to it afaik). --Xover (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Meh, its presence isn't hurting anyone —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)