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.


Nominations[edit]

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



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)

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)

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)

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)

The System of Nature[edit]

The System of Nature (1770) by Baron D'Holbach, translated by Samuel Wilkinson. No edition data.

A work that is not scan-supported, there is the introduction and first chapter, and many empty chapters. If we are to have this work then we should get a scan and proofread from that. This is abandoned and unlikely to be finished. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I found no scan at IA. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It seems to be this scan on Google Books, and this copy of the same scan on HathiTrust, and it seems to be a cut and paste from this webpage. A split and match seems an idea; it's a lot to work on, but certainly a worthy work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Here's the 1820 translation by Samuel Wilkinson on IA https://archive.org/details/systemofnatureor13holb -Einstein95 (talk) 06:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Not a fan of that edition. Besides the serious misattribution on the title page to the wrong author, and the obscurity of the translator, that scan contains only volume I. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

undo deletion request[edit]

I notice that two or more pages were deleted in 2013 following a deletion discussion that was closed as keep: Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2013-10#Various_Poe_collections. This came to my attention when an admin deleted a nonsense recreation (apologies) and another linked to deletion archive (thanks). Many of the Poe pages were organised as best as I could, and I put some time into conserving others contributions where possible, though I can't see the page history to know what happened here. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 05:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

G'day mate, great to see you're still here from time to time. The base page of Al Aaraaf, Tamerlane and Minor Poems was overwritten with vandalism in May 2018, then speadily deleted as "G1—No meaningful content or history", which is clearly an error. I have restored and rolled back. The subpages have been there all along. I've restored The Prose Romances of Edgar A. Poe, so at least you can see what was deleted — let me know if you want it deleted again. Hesperian 05:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, no, I've read it wrong. It was, as you say, deleted in 2013 as a result of the PD discussion, then recreated with nonsense in May 2018, and re-deleted. Anyhow, they are both restored for now so that you can make sense of what should be done with them. Happy to re-delete if necessary. Hesperian 05:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete The community voted to delete these because there was neither a scan to back the work, nor was there any content from that work. The page "Al Aaraaf, Tamerlane and Minor Poems" is a pseudo-title page with links to copies of the poems, but not links to copies from that edition. If someone finds a scan of the work in question, we would certainly host that, but not the kind of pseudo-work here. The same is true of "The Prose Romances of Edgar A. Poe". We don't have anything here from either work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Can you clarify "The community voted to delete these" please? I'm not seeing anything.... Hesperian 01:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Did you not follow the link at the top of this thread to the 2013 Deletion discussion? Or did you just see it archived under "Kept" and not read what the discussion actually said? Although some titles were kept as a result of the discussion, the others were deleted for having no content. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: It is evident that Hesperian reviewed the relevant discussions, if that is what is meant by your question, and that I disagree that there was any consensus to delete or my request would not have taken this form, i.e undelete. Another admin thought they could delete without reference or explanation, the actions of that account are often mysterious to me and attempts to communicate directly are always ignored. Did you review the previous discussion when redeleting, or did you not notice the page had history when you did that? Pardon any insinuation, but users who are so often correct are unused to reversing their positions. So are jerks, but that is not what I am implying. — CYGNIS INSIGNIS 08:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I noted that the pages had existed previously, and a community decision had been taken to delete them five years ago. So the pges had not existed since 2013. The only "new" content in 2018 was created by an IP who created with the content "This is a book by Edgar Allan Poe which is a collection of a lot of books that I don't know because I haven't even read the book so um this is all your getting about it unless someone decides to edit this page" This content did not seem worth keeping. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep if the works can be updated to be withing scope. Al Aaraaf, Tamerlane and Minor Poems is now self-contained though incomplete, and should be kept. Prose Romances has a scan here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I would prefer that this discussion is restored to the admin notice board when complete, and that users give an explanation when they override others intentions. The link is already noted above, and does not serve as an adequate explanation of the actions undertaken. — CYGNIS INSIGNIS 08:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:Double quotes and redirect[edit]

A template like this is contrary to our guidance in Wikisource:Style guide and I would encourage us to remove the template and replace its use with standard double quotes. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Agreed. But it will take someone quite a bit of work to eliminate the usages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment We could start by using straight quotes in the template itself, and then using a bot. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: it has a variety of characters plugged in to be used, so a straight replacement may not be possible. I would suggest that it I would run a bot through and replace, and remove. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg DeleteMpaa (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable[edit]

This work is moribund and has been for about ten years. It is a copy and paste from Bartleby. Of the many pages in the work we only have a few, and if we needed the work we should go back and get the scan and work from that,

Noting that there are disambiguation pages containing and we should purge those pages of links if we delete. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete including all existing subpages. In addition to disambiguation pages, there are some accompanying Talk pages that will also need to go. The work can easily be recreated more authoritatively from scans if sufficient interest arises. Tarmstro99 12:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The Lives of the Most Eminent English Poets[edit]

Another worthy work to have, though not in this old copy and paste form. Two biographies only out of multiple volumes. It should be deleted, and if someone wants to work on scans, if available, in the background, at that point it can be resurrected. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Prosody (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

There are several more complete scans available at IA, (via this OpenLibrary work) or on HathiTrust. The 1794 edition has all four volumes available on HathiTrust, while the 1781 and 1783 editions both lack scans of the first volume. LeadSongDog (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am working on converting the 1794 edition from HathiTrust to DjVu and will upload to Commons when complete. Please hold off deleting for now. Tarmstro99 20:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Biographia Hibernica[edit]

Another long-abandoned work in the copy and paste style. Not many biographies there, though some detail with them. It may be worth trying to get scans if the work is not overly extensive, otherwise it falls into let us tidy it up, and someone can do scans whenever. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Prosody (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Collection Efficiency of Filters versus Impactors for airborn fungi[edit]

Appears to be a contemporary work (it cites a report from 1998), so unlikely to be in the public domain unless it was prepared by a government author. No authorship or publication info provided. Long abandoned by the original poster. Tarmstro99 00:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg DeleteBeleg Tâl (talk) 13:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Regiment march[edit]

A Google search for the text turned up only this page itself. In the absence of prior publication information there is nothing from which we can conclude that the text may be hosted here. Perhaps it is an English-language translation of a foreign-language work? Tarmstro99 21:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete, couldn't find any source either —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that this is a translation of s:tr:Alay Marşı, the song of the w:Special Forces Commando (Turkey). BethNaught (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
@BethNaught: good find. Do you by any chance know anything about the copyright status or authorship of the Turkish song? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I looked for that information, but couldn't find anything, unfortunately. BethNaught (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Author:Keith Olbermann[edit]

Note sure that this fits within our criteria for author pages for public domain works or works freely licensed and labelled with "copyright author". Seems that without works there is not a lot of value hosting an author page with just redlinks. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

If there is nothing listed that we can legitimately host here, either now on the the immediate future, then there is no reason to have an Author page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
We've sometimes kept author pages for highly famous individuals to warn off potential copyvios (eg. Author:J. K. Rowling), but I don't believe Mr Olbermann meets the notability criteria in that regard. Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. Mukkakukaku (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per WS:CSD G6 (“author pages for authors whose works are all copyrighted”). Tarmstro99 12:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Constitutive Protocol of the Parliament of the Mercosur[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted.Tarmstro99 13:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
This page (and the accompanying Talk:Constitutive Protocol of the Parliament of the Mercosur) identify the work as a machine translation of es:Protocolo Constitutivo del Parlamento del Mercosur (2005). I doubt that automated BabelFish translations meet the guidelines of WS:TRANS, which refer to published translations “created and released by an external translator and publisher,” or original translations created in the first instance by Wikisource editors with competence in both languages. Tarmstro99 10:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I would argue that this would constitute a user translation. I think it is largely immaterial how the user makes their translation; some use their own knowledge, others use dictionaries and grammar books, and some use translation algorithms. The fact that User:Tfleming created the translation (albeit using an algorithm) means that it fits WS:TRANS. See also meta:Wikilegal/Copyright for Google Translations. — It is therefore my opinion that we should keep this text in the Translation space, unless the translation is of such poor quality that it warrants deletion on its own merits (for example, if improving it to the point of being tolerable would require starting from scratch). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Wow, that's pretty bad. Just look at that first sentence. The state of the art of machine translation has grown significantly in the past few years; honestly you'd be better off reading the Google translation of the esWS page. Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Mukkakukaku (talk) 00:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete (a) The work does not meet the requirements of WS:TRANS for Wikisource original translations; in particular, there is no scan-backed original on es.WS. (b) The machine translation into "English" is almost unintelligible. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, point (a) does not warrant deletion because of WS:TRANS#Grandfather rule, but point (b) is salient and the work is probably worth deleting for this reason. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
The Grandfather "rule" is not automatic; it merely says we should make reasonable effort to salvage older works. That is why I commented with an (a) and a (b). It is because of point (b) in combination with point (a) that the Grandfather rule does not apply in this situation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Deleted. Tarmstro99 13:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Tarmstro99 13:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Undelete IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: not undeleted as no evidence of compatible license provided —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
This work was incorrectly speedy-deleted under G6 (copyvio) as a "clear and proven" copyright on the basis that [3] has a website-wide copyright tag. This was mistaken since IHRA do not and can not claim copyright having not written the definition. As sourced at Working Definition of Antisemitism, the person primarily responsible for IHRA's 2016 adoption of the definition "explained that the definition is taken from the EUMC definition as there was not enough time to invent a new one".

The purpose of the definition is for it to be public domain. It was originally written in 2004 by a group of academics for the EUMC who first published it in 2005 without a copyright tag, and then disseminated it throughout the public domain via adoption by multiple governments and agencies (examples include US Government (“Unless a copyright is indicated, information on the State Department’s main website is in the public domain and may be copied and distributed without permission.”), Israeli government, UK government, London government.)

Onceinawhile (talk) 07:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Writings by the EUMC are automatically copyrighted by the EUMC in both the EU and the USA, even if there is no copyright tag, and even if the writings are adopted by multiple governments and agencies. The only way we can host this document is if the EUMC as copyright holder explicitly states that they release this document into the public domain, or that they grant permission for anyone to use the document for any purpose whatsoever with no restrictions. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
This isn’t a writing by the EUMC.
Ken Stern here sets out the Working Definition in its original form: “developed by this author along with other experts during the second half of 2004”.
Neither Ken Stern (the principal author) or others involved claimed copyright, and consciously gave the definition to world governmental organizations such as the EUMC or IHRA.
Onceinawhile (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Same thing. Writings by the Ken Stern are automatically copyrighted by Ken Stern in both the EU and the USA, even if he did not claim copyright, and even if he consciously gave the definition to world governmental organizations such as the EUMC or IHRA. The only way we can host this document is if Ken Stern as copyright holder explicitly states that he releases this document into the public domain, or that he grants permission for anyone to use the document for any purpose whatsoever with no restrictions. See the table below.
Insufficient Sufficient
No claim of copyright Explicit release into public domain
Authorized adoption by government organizations Authorized any use by any person for any purpose
Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A definition itself doesn't fit our categorisation of a publication as described in WS:WWI, it more seems to be an excerpt of a website. You need to find a published work that is not under copyright, or is freely licensed. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose undeletion; no evidence that content has been released under a license we can host here or that copyright protection has been expressly waived by author(s). Tarmstro99 20:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Sedley[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguating sections within a work that start with "Sedley" is not a good use for a disambig page. —Beleg Tâl (talk)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment We can't delete this page until the link from Sidley (DNB00) is corrected. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes check.svg DoneBeleg Tâl (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, what is the value in deleting the page? There are numbers of these through the place, usually based on DNB00, though also including EB1911 and other components. As it issn't a new or perpetuating practice, I hadn't fussed it. We probably do need a means to identify biographies by like family names, and maybe there is a scope for categorisation, based on family name. If to be done, it is a significant job. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:48, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't intend to clean up the whole job, I just saw this one and saw no reason for it to exist. I'd have deleted it already if it fell under a speedy category. We don't host pages of the form list-of-bios-of-people-with-this-surname, nor do we intend to; if we want this information, we can use Special:Search/intitle:Sedley. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I agree with Beleg Tâl on this one -- I don't see a reason for this page to exist. It's just clutter. I'd probably be in favor of removing the majority of the "disambiguation" type pages that sprang up out of DNB00 (et al) but that's a bigger unit of work. ==Mukkakukaku (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:D[edit]

An experimental template that is broken and hasn't been altered since 2010. It has no use. One of a number of archaic templates that still use the now-deleted Template:Autotranslate. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC).

I fixed the autotranslate issue. The template is still usable, though whether the editors of DNB still use it I do not know. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

USS Arizona, Upon Completion of Modernization[edit]

The source file for the text contains no text; it is an image only. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

  • If you look at the earlier version of the image all will be made clear. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks for clearing up the mystery. However, I still move to delete, since the added annotation is not part of the original photograph. It would be more appropriate to give the annotation in the file information at Commons, or in an image caption for the image's data item. For me, this falls outside the scope of what Wikisource does. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
    Note also, I've reverted the edits made to the original image. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Template:GHGbible-ref-heb[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted
I started writing this template long ago, and never used it. I actually implemented what I had meant to do with it in Module:GHG, so Template:GHGbible-ref-heb is no longer needed. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Speedied , per WS:CSD G7.Tarmstro99 18:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Judicial Yuan Interpretations in 2000[edit]

Empty category. Ankry (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

And containing category. I assume there were works in this cat that have been since deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Los Angeles City meeting memorandum[edit]

A long-abandoned cut-and-paste apparently taken from minutes of a municipal committee meeting. The original document no longer appears at the provided source URL and it apparently was not preserved on archive.org, either. Tarmstro99 14:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete, also likely copyvio —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2018 (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)

Oregon House Bill 2500 (2009)[edit]

This is an early version of a state law that was later passed in another form. This version was apparently used during markup of the bill as it proceeded through the Oregon legislature; it includes markings noting where new text has been added to, and existing text deleted from, the prior revision of the bill. The final version of the legislation was passed and signed by the Governor with changes not shown in Oregon House Bill 2500 (2009), and the final version of the law (Oregon Laws 2009, chapter 838) is available here. The text of legislation often changes, sometimes dramatically, between its original introduction and its eventual passage into law, but I see no real value in our preserving an unenacted interim revision of a bill that was superseded by later language. Tarmstro99 20:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

If the version we have exists in published form I would still keep it as technically in scope, while working to ensure the final edition is available and properly disambiguated. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for flagging this and for the details about its history. I tend to agree with Beleg Tal and will try to dig into it and help get it to a better state. -Pete (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Mamdouh Saif in the Middle Eastern press.pdf[edit]

If this is truly released into PD, then this should be transferred to Commons and deleted here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes it should. Recommend you discuss with uploader to verify source and claim to public domain. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)