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)


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)

Virtual Worlds: Theoretical Perspectives and Research Methods + others; fraudulent publications[edit]

It would appear that someone that someone is playing an elaborate hoax, or running a scam, the following works are not actually published by a reputable source, and it would appear that the reputed institute is a figment of someone's imagination for possibly fraudulent means. The pages are not within scope where they are not published in a peer-reviewed means.


Deletion of subsequent files at Commons would be recommended.

enWP has dealt with a similar issue, see w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DolceVita Institute of Technology. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I don't know what exactly is going on, but I think it's clear the materials are out of scope.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I agree that these works are out of scope. BethNaught (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I warmly endorse deletion as this seems to be part of a complex fraud. --Vituzzu (talk) 06:02, 10 May 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 -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)

The Prophecy of Joyo Boyo[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted, no evidence that translation is freely licensed
no source, no evidence of published work, nor that even in the public domain for translation. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I suspect it's a user translation. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Pulchrism: Championing Beauty as the Purpose of Art[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: kept: no consensus to delete, and author confirms that work meets criteria of WS:WWIBeleg Tâl (talk) 03:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Self-published text whose goal seems to be to promote the manifesto of a single non-notable artist. The text is pubished by Carpophage press, which according to a respected editor is Waugh's own press. Be aware that the author's pages were all deleted and salted at Wikipedia (e.g. Jesse Waugh, Jesse R. Waugh and Jesse Waugh (artist)), with instances of sockpuppeting in the discussion. Discussion of Pulchrism at wiktionary involved three sockpuppets that were blocked. 02:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete WS:WWI says "These as well as any artistic works must have been published in a medium that includes peer review or editorial controls; this excludes self-publication." It's pretty clear this is a self-published volume and is therefore out of scope.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep not a reason for deletion. Slowking4SvG's revenge 10:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. Non-notability, self-promotion, and banning from Wikipedia are all irrelevant to this discussion. The only question is whether it fails WS:WWI. Considering that Waugh has set up a discrete publishing entity ("Carpophage Press") and that this work has a physical print run, I am inclined to consider it sufficiently borderline that we should keep it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think self-promotion is irrelevant. It's part of what we're getting at in WS:WWI; if we were talking a self-published book of poems that a user bought the rights to from the heirs after the author died, that's a more interesting work than something the author really wants everyone to see. Just as importantly, we might not think of notability in the exact same way that Wikipedia does, but if an author is notable, then marginal stuff by them is more likely to provoke interest than better stuff by unknowns.
Also, this is more controversial, but I think banning from other Wikimedia pages should be at least a little important. At a certain point, letting a self-promoter keep pushing every Wikimedia project independently is unhelpful, especially if they try to use that as leverage to reopen fights on projects that have already rejected them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: I was thinking of self-promotion differently than self-publication, and I think self-promotion is completely irrelevant. If the work is itself in scope (published, licensed, etc), then the author should be more than welcome to add the workto Wikisource, improve the transcription, add to their own author page, promote the work's featured status if it might meet featured criteria, and any other action normally done on Wikisource, even if the only reason they are doing so is to promote themselves and increase visibility to their work. These actions on the part of the author improve Wikisource considerably. However, I agree that the work itself must first pass our criteria for inclusion, which would (among other things) disallow using Wikisource as the only third-party platform for self-promotion. If you can get your freely licensed writings published, please feel free to add them to Wikisource!——With regard to the second point, there are two facets to this. If a Wikimedia user is banned at Wikipedia, then we may want to consider restrictions to the user at Wikisource. However, if a work is not within scope for an article on Wikipedia, this has no bearing on whether it is within scope for hosting on Wikisource. Similarly, if a user is banned on Wikimedia, but they are the author of a work which is within scope for hosting on Wikisource, then their ban should have no bearing on whether the work should be hosted here.——When I spoke of irrelevance, I intended to separate the suitability of the work for inclusion, from the behaviour of the author on Wikimedia after publication. Since the author's behaviour does not change the suitability of the work for inclusion, I consider it irrelevant to this discussion concerning the work's suitability for inclusion. I think that you and I are in agreement otherwise :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't necessarily agree. My personal opinion is that almost all freely licensed writing that's proposed for Wikisource is junk, never the quality or importance of the majority of the PD stuff we work on, and occasionally the quality of some of the PD stuff an editor with a particular niche interest might pull from the archives and upload. (The main exception I'd argue is manuals for open source material, which at least fairly frequently hit my particular niche interest, but we tend to exclude.) When marginal, I think the value to the community of stopping self-promoters on Wikimedia exceeds any value of Wikisource hosting the work.
I think self promoters promoting their work's featured status is hugely problematic; I think it runs the risk of overloading and distorting a system run by a small handful of editors. A lot of Wikiprocesses, especially on relatively small Wikis, can quickly be overloaded by a couple of self promoters, especially with meatpuppets.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Per Prosfilaes, the relevant test is "published in a medium that includes peer review or editorial controls; this excludes self-publication", so this discussion hinges on whether the book is so published.
Beleg Tâl's remark that the work has had a physical print run is not relevant to the question of self-publication: for example, print-on-demand is very definitely a thing, and according to the Wikipedia article, in POD "Other services may also be available, including formatting, proofreading, and editing", but "POD publishing gives authors editorial independence", i.e. there is not editorial control. This is an academic question, since Waugh is printing as "Carpophage Press", but it shows that physical publication is not relevant.
Therefore, the question is whether "Carpophage Press" provides "peer review" or exerts "editorial control". Beleg Tâl says that it is discrete from Waugh, but if it is just a label run by and for Waugh, it's just self-publishing with a fancy name. Note that Waugh's LinkedIn profile lists all his publications under Carpophage Press. Moreover OpenLibrary and WorldCat only have one result for Carpophage Press, a book by Waugh. "Pulchrism" doesn't show up in the LoC. I find it extremely unlikely that Carpophage is anything other than a vanity press run by and for Waugh, providing no peer review or editorial oversight over him. The self-promotion and socking that has gone on only strengthens (although is not the main reason for) this conclusion. Therefore we should Symbol delete vote.svg Delete this work. BethNaught (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete for the reasons stated above by Prosfilaes and BethNaught. We don't host self-published works, and using your own "press" to self-publish works is not of itself enough to merit inclusion. Comment: Also, I see no evidence this work is free of copyright. Page 2 states: "All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review." --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Regarding copyright, the work was released as CC-BY via OTRS. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think there's any real reason to question the copyright on this one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
This work is not expressly self-published; it is being assumed so. However, Wikisource does contain plenty of expressly self-published works, practically innumerable to count. Here are some examples found by a random search:
  1. Unity of Good
  2. When the Leaves Come Out
  3. Oliver Spence
  4. Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures (1889)
  5. No Treason (all 3 vols)
  6. The Brass Check
  7. Index:Rosemary and Pansies.djvu
  8. Index:Queen Moo and the Egyptian Sphinx.djvu
  9. Index:Craven-Grey - Hindustani manual.djvu
  10. Index:Songs of Russia.djvu
  11. Index:Gould - Mammals of Australia - Vol III.djvu
  12. Index:History of the Armenians in India (1937).djvu
  13. Index:Mammals of Australia (Gould), introduction.djvu
Therefore, self-publication itself is not a bar. The objection should invoke other pertinent points. Hrishikes (talk) 02:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
You need to take a closer look at how WWI is structured. The examples you've given were all published before 1923, and the self-publication clause of WWI is applied to "artistic works" published after 1922. It is not applied to analytic or scientific works, nor to works published before 1923. And for some of those scientific works you've given, the author is notable by WP standards, which is an noted exception expressly laid out in WWI. So, the reasoning behind this particular argument is flawed in more than one respect. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Your own reasoning does not cover this work. This is not an "artistic work"; this is an "analytical work" on the history of art. Hrishikes (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
This work is not "analytic" according to the definition laid out in WWI. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Regardless of whether this an artistic or analytical work, the "peer review or editorial control" test does apply. Note that WWI says "Analytical works are publications that... These as well as any artistic works must have been published in a medium that includes peer review or editorial controls; this excludes self-publication." (emph mine). BethNaught (talk) 07:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Regarding whether or not is is a creative work, note that the text contains a dozen paintings by the author. Regarding the rest, if "self-publication is not a bar" then I have some great grocery lists that I have been saving for posterity. I am at a loss to understand the keep votes, as this is a clear case of someone making up a theory, writing about it, inventing an imaginary vanity press and uploading it to wikisource. (Router reset, I'm, the the nominating IP.) 03:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
This was my Masters thesis at the University of Brighton, so it was peer-reviewed by multiple professors and professors' assistants. Jessewaugh (talk) 10:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Did you graduate? Theses are published in the library catalog. 12:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Irrelevant personal question, suggest not to be answered. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, the personal question is irrelevant. However, if the work is a university thesis, it may have been published by the university press, and would therefore not be self-published. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Many of those aren't self-published works; there are many, many editions of Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures around with many editors. Likewise No Treason has been reprinted in edited editions. I don't think that rule was intended to be held against original editions of works that have seen reprint in edited form.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep The self-publication component has to be applied with consideration, its purpose is not to stop peer-reviewed works. The work and the above evidence indicate that there is sufficient evidence that this is a serious work with valid authorship, and not some whimsy. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
    If we can verify that this work (or something nearly the same) was indeed submitted and accepted as a thesis at the University of Brighton, then I would agree. Theses and Dissertations accepted at accredited institutions certainly fall within our scope. But we lack verification. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
The work is showcased and downloadable in the academia subdomain of the University of Brighton: Hrishikes (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
But that's not part of the University of Brighton website. Anything at is an independent website for an academic vanity press. See their site description. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. Go to the UoB Library online advanced search and try finding this thing. The search (AuthorCombined:(Waugh)) AND (TitleCombined:(Pulchrism)) turns up no results. (Pulchrism) returns 10 results, none of which are this work. Note that the search form has an option to exclude dissertations and theses, which I did not select. BethNaught (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I oppose that idea strongly; when I proposed the (eventually and uncontroversially deleted) work by Author:Zaman Ali for deletion, it was not because it was not "a serious work with valid authorship". Even off-wiki, whatever reservations I have about the work, I fully believe Zaman Ali wrote Humanity: Understanding Reality and Inquiring Good with serious intent and result. And on-wiki, I see it absolutely harmful to try and weigh Humanity versus Pulchrism and say that one has enough value as a work to be kept and the other doesn't. WWI is clear enough and its authors wise enough that such things are steered clear of, for more neutral criteria.
    Is it a published thesis? If it is, it clears WWI. If it's not, it continues to fall into the exclusion of self-published works for me.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
    It is a published work: 1; and the author's name is present in the list of notable alumni of the University of Brighton: 2. Hrishikes (talk) 02:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
    The fact that a person has been to college / university is not a reason to include their work, and the book is still self-published. You have not successfully responded with any pertinent new information to any of the criticisms raised, but have repeated the same claims and assertions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete.(Struck:— Jessewaugh states outright that the work has passed peer review, and I'm not prepared to maintain the position that s/he lies. Hesperian 08:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)) We know/accept that this work was authored by Waugh as a masters thesis. It follows that it was prepared with the intent of submitting it for independent peer review, but we don't know if it was ever actually submitted for independent peer review, nor whether it passed independent peer review. The paucity of the usual evidence that it did, suggests to me that it did not. Subsequent publication by Carpophage press clearly does not constitute independent editorial or peer review. I conclude that it is self-published, and doesn't meet the bar to be included here. Hesperian 05:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
It would have been impossible for me to have graduated without my Masters thesis passing the peer review of my professors and their assistants - it is the primary requirement for obtaining a degree. This is my thesis and my being listed on the University of Brighton Notable Alumni page demonstrates that I graduated, so it follows that it has to have been peer reviewed. Jessewaugh (talk) 07:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
@Jessewaugh: that is a different answer to a different question. It would be helpful if you answered the question directly. Is this paper, that is published elsewhere and reproduced here, the paper that was submitted as your master's thesis and has subsequently passed peer-review? — billinghurst sDrewth 11:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Yes. Jessewaugh (talk) 11:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
CommentNominating IP here again. What we have above is a group of wiki editors trying vet a text on their own. Obviously external peer review (i.e. publishers) are supposed to do that job. The job of peer review is not supposed to be carried out here, as it is being done above with direct questions to the author about whether they had submitted it and had it reveiwed by professors. That is the publisher's job. It is also important to note that the 'author' being queried has consistently promoted and sockpuppeted, and has gone to the trouble to translate his vain autobiographical wiki article to German, Japanese, French, Hebrew, Italian, Spanish, Arabic(?), (not sure what this one is), Russian and Chinese, and who trumpets on his homepage that his pulchrism text "has been archived at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Tate Britain, Brooklyn Museum, Museum of Modern Art, Philadelphia Museum of Art, San Diego Museum of Art, Agnes Gund Collection, and others." (when in reality all he did was send them a free copy)? Don;t be taken in by the innocent act... read his comments here instead. The emperor has no clothes, as they say. 01:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Your comment provides no useful or pertinent information. Wikipedia is a different project with different criteria for inclusion. What is at issue here is the eligibility of the text for hosting on Wikisource, not the credentials of the author. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Since you are allowing the author to argue for inclusion of his own work, I think that warning that the author has engaged in ceaseless and unethical promotional activity within wikimedia is relevant. 01:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I am sorry that you cannot see the distinction between a work and its creator. I say again, this discussion is about the former only, and not the latter. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Just for the record and in my own self-defense, is a sock puppet of Michael Mandiberg AKA Theredproject, whose actions have proven that he has a personal vendetta against me, and who has been seeking to purge my presence from all Wikimedia. He repeatedly accuses me of sockpuppeting, while engaging in massive sockpuppeting himself - the pot calling the kettle black as a diversionary tactic. He’s also engaged in widespread slanderous character assassination against me and my art. I’m not sure why he has it in for me so virulently, and I am not familiar enough with the machinations of Wikimedia in order to be able to know how to request administrative review of his actions. My request would be that he and his sockpuppets and his gender-biased crony editors be prevented from purging subject matter related to me from Wikimedia, as they are obviously biased and politically motivated. Jessewaugh (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
@Jessewaugh: Don't play with the trolls. We are assessing one work, and that is the basis of what we are doing. It either is, or it isn't in scope is our discussion. We are not assessing the authors, if we did that then many of our works wouldn't be here, as the authors were shockers, so to me that argument is solely noise. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Generally each project is independent, and given the fact that your page has been salted on Wikipedia and people are discouraged from getting involved in their own pages on Wikipedia, I suspect that you'd be running a strong chance of a w:Wikipedia:BOOMERANG.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Let it be known that the IP heatedly denies such claims, and they seem completely irrelevant to the question of the book.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Apollo Lunar Landing Mission Symposium[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: snippet moved to subpage, and the remainder has been provided through scan —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
This work is only a small part of Volume 2 or the overarching symposium. And only being a snippet, is outside of the scope described at WS:WWI. There is a link to the complete work, and if it is to be retained, then it should only be in the context of the whole work. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep, context of the whole work has been provided. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Page37-Darwin's Journal Pelagic Confervae.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted: speedy deletion as transwikied item —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I replaced this image with a better quality one on commons: File:Journal of Researches (1860) Page 015.jpg. — Mudbringer (talk) 06:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: speedy deleted per nom —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
This file appears to have been made obsolete with an upload to Commons. Index:A general history for colleges and high schools (Myers, 1890).djvu Pete (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The Secrets of the Vatican[edit]

A dump of poor OCR text from a scan, and that has sat there looking ugly from 2007. It is time that the community ridded ourself of a work that is simply ugly and not up to our standards. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Every now and then I look at this work thinking to get it off the list of very long pages, then I quail at the amount of work required to even just split it into subpages. Dumping it outright and later on getting a scan sounds good to me. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete A scan is avaliable on IA, so importing mangled OCR adds no value to the work; it also degrades the quality of Wikisource. BethNaught (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg DeleteMpaa (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The Healing of the Nations[edit]

Another unceremonious OCR dump that is sitting there ugly after 5 years, and just creates work in the main namespace. Abandoned ugly OCR dumps are not we are about and should be deleted. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

There is a good scan at IA: (External scan) if someone would care to begin setting up a transcription project. But I agree that there is no reason to keep the botched OCR we currently have. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:39, 12 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)
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)

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)

The Great Historical, Geographical, Genealogical and Poetical Dictionary and subsidiary pages[edit]

A work that has a smattering of ten biographies, long-held. The subparts all hand-typed, and this work has been long abandoned, and it is only a small start of a larger work. The subparts are not as classical subpages, instead take the DNB style. The work is not worth trying to resurrect in this form, and I recommend that it be deleted, and if required that it be resurrected as scan supported, and in our existing style of root page, and subpages. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The Comprehensive Gazetteer of England and Wales, 1894-5[edit]

Another work that is long abandoned. Two subpages only, copy and paste only. While it is a worthwhile work that would be great to have, we would want scan-backed so that it can be continued by multiple people. Like this it will sit moribund. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:56, 17 June 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)

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)