Wikisource:Proposed deletions

From Wikisource
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.



Template:Chart[edit]

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)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete happy to cull an unneeded, and code problematic template. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Huon of Burdeux[edit]

Incomplete work without a source, that has been long abandoned. If someone can find a text that matches then it is presuambly resurrectable, however, at this time, it is just problematic. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep the "original" version, there is a scan matching it here. I'm inclined to delete the "respelled" version as an abandoned annotated edition with no chance of completion. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
    I am not saying that the work is out of scope, I am saying that what we have here is valueless and abandoned in the main namespace. There are so many differences: name, pages, etc., we should ditch what is there. No one is going to work on it, and it should be despatched. We should stop having rubbish hanging around. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
    @Beleg Tâl: This discussion tends towards delete, and after 6 months a close is way overdue, but I see you're doing some work here. Are you doing/planning anything that would affect the conclusion? Should I sit on my itchy "clean out the backlogs!" hands for a while yet? --Xover (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Xover: If you look through the archives of this page, you will see many discussions that began with consensus to delete, and then were speedy kept after a scan was added. I want to make sure that this work is only deleted if there is consensus to delete it despite the presence of a scan, and despite the precedent of speedy-keeping such works. However, I have no intention of doing anything more than scan-backing the existing content. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
    Regardless, Inductiveload's creation of Index:Huon of Burdeux - Lee.djvu has significant potential to affect the conclusion, and so we should definitely keep the discussion open a while longer (unless you think there is reason to speedy close). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Beleg Tâl: Thanks. Did you also clean out the annotations (NB! see my initial comment) from the "original"? In any case, I'll probably still land on {{vd}} of the mainspace text (not the scan and index; they're fine), but you may want to ping the other participants in this discussion. It was mere happenstance that I noticed you had done some work on this, and the odds of anybody changing their vote based on changes they are not aware of seem rather slim. :) --Xover (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
    The annotations in the "original" version are actually included in the published text! (In italics though, not in grey.) The "respelled" version has been moved to Duke Huon of Burdeux/Annotated per the standard used by {{annotation header}}, and I still think it should be deleted because (unlike the transcribed text) it is user-generated content that is genuinely and uncontroversially abandoned. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
    …?!? Wow, good catch! It didn't even occur to me to check that. (And, yes, unless someone in this discussion specifically argues to keep the respelled version I'd be strongly inclined to delete it as outside policy irrespective of whether the "original" is kept or deleted.) --Xover (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per Billinghurst; and because even the "Original" version is actually an annotation: In this e-text, under the original chapters, letters in grey do not appear on the manuscript, but have been supplied here for clarity's sake. (For example, qd has been expanded to quod.). But just to be clear, I think what was attempted here was a very good idea and something we should give some thought to how we can achieve. But in this specific case what we have is an abandoned annotation without an unmodified original (i.e. it is outside policy). If we can find some way to put this into a policy framework and completed I would be happy to see it undeleted. I see it was largely created by The Man in Question who is still active on enwp. Perhaps they would be interested in working on it? With an unmodified original available, I think this would be a great annotated edition. --Xover (talk) 09:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per reasons above. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
    It is great there is now the scan, but until some sensible progress is made in its proofreading there are not many reasons to keep the empty pages in the main namespace, so I still stay with my previous decision. It is no good when a reader browses our works and keeps bumping into empty and abandoned pages. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete: uploaded a scan at Index:Huon of Burdeux - Lee.djvu, which appears a complete 2-volume binding. What we have isn't enough to keep (3 chapters from the start of Vol 2), no-one's ever going to finish it the current mainspace form. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 12:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Airasia flight QZ 8501 passenger manifest[edit]

Previously discussed at WS:CV as a copyright issue (kept). Original PDF was deleted with minimal discussion at Commons, and an undeletion request declined citing privacy concerns. As best I can tell regarding copyright, this is simply {{PD-ineligible}}.

However, a recurring issue in all the previous discussions was whether the data is in scope per WS:WWI. It was highly relevant in 2014 at the time of the incident, so it was probably smart to keep it at the time for that reason alone, but now that it has had time to fade into history a little bit I think we should assess properly whether this is worth keeping. And let me be clear: the same factors that make this ineligible for copyright (lack of original expression) also argue that this is not within scope for Wikisource. Arguments to the contrary that turn the work into being a copyright violation are probably not particularly effective. --Xover (talk) 09:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep This is clearly in scope as a documentary source, being "evidentiary in nature, and created in the course of events". I also agree that this is {{PD-ineligible}}. We will need to get a hold of that PDF for local hosting. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
The PDF can be retrieved from w:File:QZ8501 Passenger Manifest.pdf. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
This is a raw list of passengers on the relevant flight that IMO bears little resemblance to … constitutions and treaties [and] personal correspondence and diaries.. It does, however, sound quite a lot like 1. Lists;… 3. Tables of data or results, better known as Reference material, to me. However, the full report on that accident—which presumably includes that list in an appendix somewhere—would clearly be a documentary source. --Xover (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Reference material is also in scope if "it is published as part of a complete source text". As far as I can tell this PDF is a complete source text, or do you have evidence to indicate otherwise? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
The exception for a "complete source text" refers to Reference data that is provided as part of larger publication (tables, appendices, etc.) is perfectly acceptable. The passenger list is just a dump of data from the airline's booking system (it's literally a tab separated dump of some rows of the database with minimal formatting: I've written the code to produce such about a gazillion times for various purposes over the years); unlike the complete accident report that would include such data as a table or in an appendix. That a mere data dump is "complete" does not ipso facto turn it into a "publication"; and reference material is not in scope on its own, it is merely "perfectly acceptable" if it is here because it is a part of a work that is in scope. --Xover (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion, the fact that by publishing this data dump as a complete PDF document, AirAsia has turned it into a documentary source that is evidentiary in nature, and created in the course of events (the other stuff listed there are just examples and their similarity to the document in question is of no relevance). The entire contents of this documentary source is reference material which is published as part of the complete source text as released by AirAsia. Even if you disagree with this interpretation, it is still a valid interpretation of WS:WWI and therefore in my opinion this document should be kept regardless. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────┘
There appears to be a fundamental disagreement on the best course of action for this work among the (two) participants in this discussion. I would therefore request wider community input to enable a proper determination of consensus. All input would be valuable for that purpose: "keep", "delete", "dunno", "don't care", and whatever else you think relevant would all be helpful in that regard. --Xover (talk) 06:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst, @Beeswaxcandle: As the only two still-active participants in the previous discussion, do you have an opinion on this issue? --Xover (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I expressed my opinion and the community made a decision at that time. I generally don't revisit discussions unless there is a specific change in the circumstance around the decision. Generally we would live with previous discussions whether we agree voted for or against it, whether we agree or disagree with that decision. [Don't pick scabs] — billinghurst sDrewth
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep: This seems like a fairly un-controversial piece of documentary evidence. It's not particularly mind-blowing, but it's real, and it was part of a then-current event. Assuming it really is {{PD-ineligible}} in the places needed, that is - it's PD in Indonesia because it's not a "work" there. Does it also need to be PD in the US, and if so, is it? If it is PD, recommend scan-backing to the PDF and tidying up. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 15:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Inductiveload: The copyright issue was settled well enough in previous discussions, whose conclusions I agree with: this is ineligible for copyright in the US due to not rising above the threshold of originality (it's just a dump of their passenger database). For works that are not eligible for copyright protection at all in the US, we don't need to care about the usual URAA and status in country of first publication stuff (AIUI).
    The question at hand in this discussion, and which is what has made it linger without resolution, is whether it is in scope for Wikisource. The question was raised repeatedly in previous discussions, but never addressed directly (the context then was copyright); and in this discussion I and Beleg Tâl reach diametrically opposite conclusions (and Billinghurst robustly refuses to address the issue). --Xover (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it is in scope of WS, and it looks like it falls under PD-inelligible. If kept, it should be backed by the PDF document. However, if Commons declined the document for privacy reasons, can we ignore this concern? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Jan.Kamenicek: We have no local policy that addresses privacy beyond what the WMF Terms of Use impose. This is also a well-publicised public record (you can bet this same list of names scrolled across the TV screens of a bazillion news broadcasts at the time), and not all that sensitive, so whether we host a copy of it is of little matter in that sense. I brought up the Commons deletion mainly because it smacks of being a knee-jerk deletion. I don't personally think we should give Commons' decision excessive weight in this particular instance (others may of course disagree). Iff we keep it we'd need to upload it locally instead of on Commons, but we do that all the time anyway due to the differing copyright policies.
    That said, I do agree we should consider privacy in such cases in general, and particularly when, like in this case, it's just a list of victims names. But to me that falls under the scope issue that prompted this nomination: where is the value we bring there? Why do we need to host this mere list of names stripped of context? As a data appendix to the full air accident report, certainly; but when stripped out on its own like this? I just don't see that it falls within scope as defined in WS:WWI (which is, as all our policies, way too imprecise and handwavy for comfort, but…), and if it does then I don't see why it should be. --Xover (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, we should definitely take privacy issues into account and the value of the bare list of victims’ names is so low that it cannot overpower this concern, no matter whether we take it as a separate issue or as a part of our scope. So finally I come to Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:Cl-act-p[edit]

Overly complex, will soon be unused (outside of testcases). Per certain contributors views on over-complicated layouts. The related family of templates and associated module should probably be reviewed as well.

This is an overly complicated train-wreck of a template, that would need a major overhaul before it's anything like suitable for use on English Wikisource, and still remains incompatible with many other templates in common use.

Delete and redesign, once existing usages have been resolved. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support after current usage replaced —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete These complex formatting templates can be a boon, but they have a steep cost so using (creating) them wisely is recommended. Works large and regular enough to merit work-specific formatting templates (like EB1911, DNB, etc.), and without too complex formatting needs, will be the optimal use case. If the users of this template are frustrated by ongoing and unfixable problems and interactions with other templates, that's a strong indication that this template is not worth the hassle. --Xover (talk) 05:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
    Xover, see also comment below about numbered div , and possible re-implementation using a styled definition list. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
    @ShakespeareFan00: Can you confirm that the nominations was in regards {{cl-act-p}} including sub-templates (i.e. {{cl-act-p/1}}, {{cl-act-p/1-2}}, {{cl-act-p/2}}, {{cl-act-p/2a}}, {{cl-act-p/3}}, {{cl-act-p/4}}, {{cl-act-p/x}}, {{cl-act-p/indexstyle}})? And should I presume it also includes the sister templates in Special:PrefixIndex/Template:cl-act? I see the main {{cl-act}} template is still in use, so I presume that's not intended to be deleted. Anything else from that list that likewise shouldn't be deleted?
    Also, I notice that several of these were first created by JustinCB who has not so far participated in this discussion. Do you have an opinion either way JustinCB? --Xover (talk) 05:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
    It didn't include {{cl-act}} which was still in use. Anything that was still in use was not to be deleted. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Also excluded -

  • Cl-act
  • Cl-act-TOC-h0
  • Cl-act-TOC-h1
  • Cl-act-TOC-h2
  • Cl-act-TOC-h3
  • Cl-act-TOC-s1
  • Cl-act-TOC-s1/2
  • Cl-act-TOC-s2
  • Cl-act-h1
  • Cl-act-h2
  • Cl-act-h3
  • Cl-act-layout
  • Cl-act-missing
  • Cl-act-cons
  • Cl-act-amend
  • Cl-act-pre
  • Cl-act-pre-nt
  • Cl-act-s
  • Cl-act-s1
  • Cl-act-s1-repealed
  • Cl-act-s1/2
  • Cl-act-s2
  • Cl-act-s2/3
  • Cl-act-s3
  • Cl-act-s4
  • Cl-act-style
  • Cl-act-t
  • Cl-act-t-int
  • Cl-act-t-int1
  • Cl-act/doc
  • Cl-act/sandbox

As these are STILL in use (and the previous attempt by others.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am holding off on this one because I'm waiting to hear from JustinCB (who has not edited since last October). --Xover (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Constitution of Rojava[edit]

Incomplete machine translation untouched since 2016, and by a contributor that has not edited since 2016, with no source, no license (though we would probably consider it PD-EdictGov), and in the wrong namespace (it's a Wikisource translation of the foreign-language original). It popped up on my radar because it's the kind of thing that attracts both vandals and "factual corrections". --Xover (talk) 11:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikisource translations are kind of the wild west. Suggest to move to Translations page and tag it with translation license|original={{PD-EdictGov}}. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Sigh. How about we just provide a link to the original on Google Translate? If we can track it down, as no source is provided. What possible value can a straight machine translation that will never be worked on have? Are we willing to keep any old thing so long as it's called a translation? And conversely, do we really want the translation namespace to be a dumping ground for low-quality cruft that overwhelms what high-quality translations we have (do we have any high-quality translations?)? I swear, some times on here I feel like I've wandered into an episode of Hoarders! Come on people, let's get some KonMari going here! --Xover (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Lol. Translation namespace is kind of a dumping ground for low-quality cruft - even WS:T notes that "there is no requirement to show any level of competence in a subject or a language to participate". However, there is a way to get around it: if the work was added after July 2013 (such that the grandfather rule does not apply), and if a scan-backed copy is not present on the original language Wikisource, then technically it falls afoul of WS:T and we can delete it as such :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
So far as I can tell, this clearly and straightforwardly fails to meet WS:T on multiple scores. First and foremost, WS:T says A full translation into English, by Wikisource contributors, of a work previously published in another language. (emphasis in original). This is neither a "full translation", nor meaningfully "by Wikisource contributors" (it's cut&paste from Google Translate, the exclusion of which was an explicit goal of WS:T). It also says A scan supported original language work must be present on the appropriate language wiki, where the original language version is complete at least as far as the English translation. An inter-wiki link to the original language work must be present on the English translation. Neither of which clauses are met here. And, finally, it says Works that are incomplete and abandoned for long periods may be nominated for deletion …. Which brings us to this proposal.
I don't think these are mere technicalities, or having the policy becomes pointless. But still we keep moving these low-quality works into Translation: where they gather dust indefinitely… --Xover (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I think one could argue that this is a "full" translation in the sense that there is no part left untranslated, and that this is "by Wikisource contributors" in the sense that "the resulting copyright owner would be the user of the software". There is an inter-wiki link to ar:العقد الاجتماعي للفيدرالية الديمقراطية لروج آفا – شمال سوريا as required. We have yet to establish a consensus of what constitutes "abandoned for long periods" (someone argued to me recently that February 2019 counted as "a long time ago", which I'm sure even you would agree is insufficient).
To sum up, I think that this discussion has the ability to set precedent for many other works in Translation space and so we should be very clear about what we are willing to tolerate. In my opinion, "abandoned for long periods" is the key argument here, so putting a value on "long periods" would be a good starting point. The rest are, in my opinion, technicalities. We could also consider explicitly disallowing machine translations. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me that two years of inactivity is a good line to draw, what do you think? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
See, the thing is, we do disallow machine translations! That was explicit and uncontested in the RFC that led up to the 2013 update of WS:T, it was just never actually written into the policy page (because we have such a lax attitude towards formal policies). And the way translations were supposed to work (again, explicit in the RFC) is that 1) a scan-backed foreign language work is proofread on the appropriate language WS, then 2) an index for the foreign-language work is set up here and 3) the translation done in the Page: namespace as if proofreading, before 4) transcluding into the Translation: namespace. Translated works here should cover no more of the work than is already proofread in the original language's WS if it is not complete. The decision to require a scan-backed foreign-language proofread work was deliberate. The goal of the RFC was to clean up the mess that had accrued prior, so being strict about what Wikisource translations were to be permitted was by design. And yet we're treating it as the exact opposite.
In any case, I very much agree with your other points except the "technicalities" bit. All those things are standards set through the RFC in order to give guidance for just such discussions as this. Not that they can't be overruled when the case requires it and consensus supports it (everything can), but it changes the default presumption and prevents rehashing each aspect every time.
As to time period, I'd happily accept anything between one and three years for incomplete stuff sitting in the Translation: namespace. For incomplete translation sitting in the Page: namespace (and scan-backed) I would not personally be in any hurry, so maybe 3+ years with a low bar to resetting the clock if anybody expresses an interest in working on it. --Xover (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
It is strange to me that this RFC (which I have not read) is so different from the policy that resulted from it. When I (independently) began creating scan-backed user translations a couple of years ago, some other admins flagged my work as out of scope, and said that what I was doing was "very unusual", so this is not well known even among the more experienced admins. I think I am more anti-deletionist than most, so there is also that. But yeah, three years sounds good (and if no one objects to it, I'd count this as precedent). As far as machine translations go: I just realized that if it were not masquerading as a Wikisource original translation I would have no hesitation to nuke it as an unpublished translation in violation of WS:WWI, so I guess that rationale works here too since no original content has been added to it. But I do think machine translations should be explicitly addressed in WS:T. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment move it to the contributor's user namespace, and leave them a note that if finished that it belongs in the Translation: ns. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support A good compromise, I didn't think of that, but we should probably take this course of action more often. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    @Billinghurst: Regarding moves to User space, you moved the work Translation:Mayan legends (discussed below) to User space for much this reason, but it was then moved out of user space by another user without the underlying issues having been resolved. Any ideas how to prevent this? Perhaps an {{mbox}} or category (or both) to track and educate? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
    @Beleg Tâl: We can handle it in a number of ways. 1) simply protect the work against a move, either soft or hard; 2) write a filter that disallows it, or warns against it, and a permission level, or some of the AF rights or other conditions that can be applied; 3) simply write a filter that flags such a move out of a namespace. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
    Moving junk to user space solves very little: it's just another namespace to use as a dumping ground. At the very least this option should only be applicable when the user in question is active and asserting an intent to work at something that may eventually be suitable for a content namespace (and should be a time-limited grace period even then). And once we start accumulating junk in User: space it is going to be essentially impossible to clean up: main and Translation: space have at least some standards, User: has none. --Xover (talk) 19:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
    @Xover: Yes, though qualified. Firstly, we have always been pretty liberal with our user ns, and as long as it is not abuse, or clearly contravening decency, we have allowed numbers of constructs where they are within the true nature of Wikimedia. Secondly, we delete junk, though there can be occasions when it may not be, and you simply want the time to explore, discuss and don't want the user to get kicked in the guts when they are seemingly, or trying to be, doing the right thing, but it doesn't fit. If the user ns is less pure, so what. It is user space, it isn't primarily indexed, and if it has some constructs, and they are not harmful, they are not copyright, they are not abuse, what do we really care??? I have pages of junk in my user space, some of which I prod and turn over, some of which I do not. One user has 00s of proto WP articles here. How is any of that different? — billinghurst sDrewth 20:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
    I'll grant that moving to userspace does achieve the most critical aim: it gets junk out of the main content namespaces. I'll also stipulate a general exception for instances where we have something that is not yet, but may eventually be, suitable for main/Translation: and where a user is actively asserting an intent to work on it in their sandbox. That's essentially the "don't discourage [kick in the guts] contributors" scenario.
    What I am objecting to is using Translation: and User: space (or any other namespace) as dumping grounds for stuff that would otherwise be deleted. The case at hand is a machine translation straight out of Google Translate. It has had minimal wiki formatting, but the translation itself has not been fixed. It's been sitting there untouched for well over three years (2016). The user who uploaded it has not edited for three years. In other words, it's junk that has zero realistic chance of ever being worked on at all, much less improved to the point we'd host it.
    And every page of junk we have sitting around has a maintenance cost. Take this one, dumped in Translation: where we tend to dump everything, sitting there with a {{under construction}} tag that puts it in a maintenance category, contributing to the backlog and hiding other articles needing attention. It attracts "corrections" and vandalism, showing up in Recent Changes and needing patrolling. If it had templates in it it would be another page needing (possibly manual) intervention when migrating or deprecating templates. Etc. Nothing much to care about for one page, but something that accumulates quickly if we make a habit of it (which this thread is in danger of creating precedent to do).
    I have no complaints about a user creating a gazillion sandboxes and works in progress in their user space: it's us using the user space of an absent user as a convenient place to hide our trash that's the problem. Sooner or later it'll start to stink bad enough to lower property values in the whole neighbourhood. --Xover (talk) 05:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Last Will and Testament of Cecil Rhodes[edit]

Dump and forget text that is ugly OCR. Whilst the text is in scope, the presentation is most definitely not. The contributor is long gone, God rest his soul. If someone feels like trying to getting something, it is at Internet Archive identifier : lastwilltestamen00rhoduoftbillinghurst sDrewth 12:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment While my immediate inclination was to agree with you, I notice that there was an effort to clean it up as recently as two weeks ago. If someone is interested in salvaging it I would be inclined to give them the time to do so. @Arlo Barnes: What're your plans for this work? Are you planning to clean it up completely? Billinghurst has found a scan (see above), so if you're interested we could help you get set up to proofread it properly to modern standards. Otherwise it'll probably get deleted (with no prejudice to recreating if someone wants to work on it in the future) because as it stands it's just a cut&paste of the OCR text at IA. --Xover (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Here is your index page: Index:Last Will and Testament of Cecil Rhodes.djvuBeleg Tâl (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
I am new to Wikisource QA, but I would be willing to give it a try (I ventured onto that page from the Wikidata entry, where I spend more time). Arlo Barnes (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Excellent. I'll follow up on your talk page. --Xover (talk) 06:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment deletion is not a text improvement process. rather, if you must, put on a maintenance category, and elevate non-scan backed texts at central discussion. Slowking4Rama's revenge 23:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Sure, and having revolting OCR pastes has always been inhibitory to text improvement. If your methodology worked, then I could see its purpose. Ten years experience would say that it has, at best, a 1% chance of working. Removal and adding scans and encouragement has always been more effective. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Don’t delete something if you don’t have better to offer; if you just deleted every text that was subpar your collection would be pointless - the whole philosophy of a wiki is that things get better with time. Lemuritus (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

All Around the Mulberry Bush[edit]

The original nursery rhyme is in the public domain, but there are many variations, and the earliest publication date I can find for this specific variation is 1985. If not deleted, it should be replaced with a variation that can be found in its entirety in a public domain source. BD2412 T 05:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

There's an excellent version here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I have added that version to Talk:All Around the Mulberry Bush for now, although that version does not actually contain the phrase, "All Around the Mulberry Bush". I note that the article was originally created with only four verses, and the rest (including the likely non-PD stuff) was added by this 2017 anon edit. BD2412 T 01:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
The song is generally called "Pop Goes the Weasel", and the lyric "all around the mulberry bush" does not appear to be the most common variant ("All around the cobbler's bench" is, from what I can tell, the usual phrase). In my opinion, we should make a versions page, add the Beadle variant and perhaps a couple others, and then just delete this unsourced unlicensed version. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Versions page is created at Pop Goes the Weasel (nursery song)Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The Atheian System[edit]

I can see no rationale why this purported 1963 publication would not fall under copyright. The author also died in 1963, so we won't even hit the 70 year mark until 2033. BD2412 T 21:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  • It's one of the frustrating works where pedantry stops us from keeping a work that's widely available and nobody would worry about. But I see no evidence this was ever published with permission of the copyright holder, which would make it legally unpublished and eligible for undeletion in 2034.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I see no plausible arguments why this should be public domain or freely licensed. On the talk page, Mukkakukaku asserts that it is PD-USGov by virtue of being included in the Warren report, but that's just the common public record vs. public domain misunderstanding. (PS. BD2412 shouldn't this have been posted to WS:CV instead?). --Xover (talk) 08:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
    • The outcome should be the same irrespective of the formality of which forum is used. BD2412 T 13:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete, I see no reason to consider this PD —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. By the claim of User:Mukkakukaku, it is either in the public domain as a result of U. S. governmental publication, or by the abandonment of the author or the lack of renewal. There is no reason for this to have ever been copyrighted, and if it was, it would certainly be in the public domain currently. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC).
    Unfortunately, all of this is incorrect. Despite Mukkakukaku's erroneous assertion, government publication does not render the document PD (see previous discussions that make reference to Green Eggs and Ham). Abandonment does not render the document PD; there is no provision in copyright law nor in Wikisource policy for this. Renewal is only relevant for works published in 1963 or earlier, and the Warren report was published in September 1964; prior to this, the work was an unpublished manuscript (unpublished manuscripts are copyrighted for life+70 i.e. until 2033). Finally, all works are automatically copyrighted at the moment they are fixed in a tangible medium, so the idea that "there is no reason for this to have ever been copyrighted" is simply false. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The Banks of Sweet Primroses (no source)[edit]

Unsourced edition of a song for which we have two excellent sourced editions. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete without prejudice to keeping it if the version can be identified (and it's PD). Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 14:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
    The uploader also created the Wikipedia article for this song, and the references for lyric quotations on the Wikipedia article cite the music recording "Bob Copper, A Song for Every Season, London, 1971", so I'm guessing it's a user transcription of that recording. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete If we have an (let alone multiple) sourced editions I see no reason to keep an unsourced one. --Xover (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

History of Delaware County[edit]

The preface of the work of the same name, with no other work done. Incomplete since 2010 “extraction.” As there is no impetus for the completion of this abandoned work, it should be deleted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC).

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep As usual, I move to migrate this to a scan-backed edition of the full work. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    Scan is added. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I am afraid that this work is going to follow the following typical scenario: an abandoned work is nominated for deletion, then at least the scan is uploaded and title and contents pages (which were not even proofread) are transcluded, and after this the work is quickly abandoned again. Unless sombedy declares that they are going to work on it, I vote for deletion of the abandoned work from the main namespace while keeping it in the index namespace. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete mainspace as abandoned extract and per Jan above. Index: and Pages: can stay. --Xover (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Chinese emperors[edit]

It appears that neither of these emperors of China were the authors of any works.

With no known works written by them, the pages should be deleted, since they are not authors. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Qin Shi Huang has, as far as I know, no extant works as such. Though he is frequently referred to in works from or about China, and if the sole subject of some books. So at least this should be a portal with a redirect. zh:Author:秦始皇 has a few works listed as by him, but I think they might be extracts from things like Author:Sima Qian's Shiji.
  • Wenzong of Qing (Xianfeng) was an emperor in the 1800s, and will have many references to him in non-fiction works since then. There will be plenty of his works (edicts, etc) still existing. Edicts, especially, occasionally pop up in English-language journals (like this one from the Jiaqing Emperor (Xianfeng's grandfather). Several Chinese-language texts by him will also be available, but I struggle to dig these out of the Chinese-language internet (if you think IA/Hathi is a mess...). VIAF/WorldCat has a few works listed, but they don't turn up scans immediately (this one (Historical Records of Xianfeng) suggests there are over 5000 pages of material under his name). I suggest leaving this where it is, since there will be works both by and about, we just don't have any yet. And there are incoming references to him already, eg Treaty of Tien-Tsin between the Queen of Great Britain and the Emperor of China (where the Emperor of the title is Xianfeng). Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 09:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Works about an individual aren't reason to have an Author page; we've established that as a community over and over. The question is whether there are works written by him that can be hosted here. If there aren't any works written by him, or if none can be found in English, then there is no reason to have the Author page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
      • As promised, there are English-language translations of at least some edicts of this emperor in contemporaneous collective works. They can be tricky to find because they often don't use the name at all or use various transliterations (Heen-fung in this case). I have uploaded a scan, but I'm unsure how to lay the work out in mainspace (it's a collation of multiple sheaves of documents, some with identical names, as a report to British Parliament, with repeated numbering within the document), so I didn't make redlinks, just a scan link. Input welcome on that.
      • FWIW, I find the Author/Portal split for people who clearly did write things based solely on the criteria "we have PD English works to hand right now" to be pedantic but I get that that beaten horse is long dead. Perhaps if "Author:" was "Person:", but it isn't. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 19:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
        • agreed —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
        • It would be great if such translations were not only discovered, but also added here. My personal opinion is that author pages at English Wikisource should be founded only for authors having some works at English Wikisource, but I admit this opinion is not backed by the below linked rule. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
    • An edict by Qin Shi Huang was recently discovered. I don't know if the text of the edict is available online. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
      • I guess this work is elligible to be added to Chinese Wikisource, and so might also be the ruler’s author page. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
        • Chinese Wikisource already has an author page for Qin Shi Huang (zh:Author:秦始皇), though I believe the "works" are extracts from other historical documents. I don't think they (yet) have the Liye slips mentioned by Beleg Tâl. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
          • If we at least have evidence that works by that emperor are known with certainty to exist, then that is enough to satisfy me. That at least provides a basis for original translations once the Chinese text becomes available. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
            • If some original Wikisource translation of such a work were made one day, which is imo very unlikely, the author page can easily be founded then. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
          • WRT "works" that are extracts from other historical documents, this is the same situation as Author:Jesus of Nazareth. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The River Dove[edit]

I am willing to move the existing two-page excerpt to scan, but given recent discussions I'm presenting it to the community for deletion first. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete It's an abandoned extract that nobody is likely to work on any time soon. M&S'ing it into Page: namespace and linking the Index: on the author page will do far more to encourage future improvement then keeping this low-quality fragment sitting around in mainspace. --Xover (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete, consistently with my votes in similar cases above. I support uploading the scan, but the namespace page can wait until somebody decides to proofread it (if somebody decides to proofread it). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete scan is better --DannyS712 (talk) 06:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Index:Dudeney - Amusements in Mathematics.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
Deleted as obvious speedy under CSD G4. If anyone actually objects I'll be happy to undelete and have a full deletion discussion.

I would like to suggest that Index:Dudeney - Amusements in Mathematics.djvu be reviewed for deletion as a duplicate. There is a more recent Index Index:Amusements in mathematics.djvu which has had a lot more more work done to it recently. Thanks Sp1nd01 (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete speedy. Don't forget to delete the underlying pages also. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Agree, speedy delete. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Xover (talk) 06:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:Realign OCR[edit]

Proposed for deletion, given concerns from another contributor that it may be "over-templating", when the index ns pages it was used on are already indicated as "Source file needs to be fixed". As an intriem edit I've changed this into being a "silent categorisation" template, although as it is currently unused, this could be considered as a speedy. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Generally, discussion whether we need/want some template should always precede its removal from Wikisource pages, not vice versa.
As for this particular one, I am unable to say any opinion, as the template has never had any documentation showing its purpose (creating a template should always be conditioned by creating a well-written and detailed documentation page) and as you have even changed the template prior to this proposal, so I cannot see anywhere what it is/was supposed to provide. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Index:Hindu Tales from the Sanskrit.pdf[edit]

Duplicate to Index:Hindu Tales from the Sanskrit.djvu which has better quality scans. Existing proofreading migrated over. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)