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.



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)
 
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep This template was updated to use straight quotes, and is still useful for the slight padding and other esoteric uses. I'd suggest to mark it as deprecated and discourage its use, but since it is no longer contrary to our style guidelines I do not think it needs to be deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:30, 14 November 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)
I can't find a scan of this exact edition (1898, published by Henry Altemus), but there are lots of scans of other printings out there. When I have a chance I'll put a scan behind it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:43, 14 November 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)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment We do have scans of this work in progress (see Index:Biographia Hibernica volume 1.djvu, Index:Biographia Hibernica volume 2.djvu), but little progress has been made since they were posted in 2010 due to problems with the scans (missing and/or duplicated pages in both volumes). I will see whether I can find better scans elsewhere. Tarmstro99 16:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep and migrate to (corrected) DjVu (Index:Biographia Hibernica volume 1.djvu, Index:Biographia Hibernica volume 2.djvu). Tarmstro99 16:18, 5 November 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)

Template:D[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: kept, autotranslate issue resolved —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
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)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:44, 14 November 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)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete USS Arizona, Upon Completion of Modernization on grounds of scope. I’d also lean towards deleting the other image-only pages linked by User:Azertus, but they should probably have their own discussion first; because if we delete 10 pages on grounds that mere captions for an image do not qualify as source texts (unless, of course, included as part of a larger document in which the image appears), that may qualify as a developing precedent-based exclusion suitable for mentioning at WS:WWI. A fuller discussion should occur before adopting what is functionally a “there must be more text than just a caption” policy, which is why my deletion vote for now is limited to USS Arizona, Upon Completion of Modernization. Tarmstro99 15:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
    The issue here is that the "Caption" seem to have been written or printed onto an existing image. Posters which consist of an image and text, both of which were present on the poster at the time of printing, are not at issue here. This instance consists of text added afterwards, which we normally do not transcribe here; much like library stamps, ex libris information, handwritten notations, etc. And in this case, the base document consists solely of an image, with no text whatsoever. Single image-only items clearly fall outside of WS:WWI and belong at Commons. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
It sounds like you would be more favorably disposed towards the other pages listed above by User:Azertus, which is fine. I personally do not see much value to our collection in transcribing a three-line slogan from a poster that is not part of a more substantial work, but opinions can vary. I believe we are in agreement on deleting USS Arizona, Upon Completion of Modernization, however. Tarmstro99 14:31, 30 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)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment this text is now backed by a published source document. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm iffy on the copyright. Does {{PD-EdictGov}} cover drafts? My reading of the license is that actual legislation that passed would be covered because it is an edict of government. A draft is not an edict, is it? --Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
At the federal level, even draft legislation would surely be public domain under Section 105 (as a work created by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment). As far as other governments are concerned, I’m not aware of any state governments who have drawn a line between draft and final legislation. Those states who have been most active in asserting copyright over their laws have argued (wrongly, I think) that even the final, enacted laws are covered by copyright. (Oregon has been especially active in this regard, so there is a non-zero risk that they would take exception to Oregon House Bill 2500 (2009), but the courts have been pretty sympathetic towards groups like Carl Malamud’s who have been attempting to provide broader free access to legal materials.) The recent controversies around copyrighting legislation have involved the assertion of copyright by private entities (not governmental bodies) who drafted model codes that were later adopted by a government; the question has been whether the government’s adoption of the private entity’s work as the law negates the private drafter’s copyright. On that question, the courts have gone both ways; but nothing in their analyses would suggest that governments themselves may assert copyright in their own draft legislation. Tarmstro99 18:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment To the foregoing I should add that, unless other editors still have concerns about the copyright, the migration of the original text to the published source document suffices to resolve my stated concerns. Although I think the discussion should be left open for a few more days to permit any further comments, following that time I’m inclined to close this out with a result of Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. Tarmstro99 12:38, 9 November 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)

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

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

If we're sure either of those is the same "edition" (even if the indices are additional material not previously included -- maybe the original cut-n-paster didn't want to deal with complex data grids?), then possibly we could go the match-and-split route? --Mukkakukaku (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I did match-and-split on a text like this recently, with zero proofreading and tons of OCR crap, and based on my experience I would far rather proofread from scratch than from this. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The Confirmation Warrant of Phoenix Lodge[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Kept, source provided.Tarmstro99 12:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
No evidence of publication. No source. A Google search for portions of the text turned up only this page itself. Tarmstro99 00:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
As a historical document it is clearly in scope, though it is unfortunate that a direct copy of the original document is not available. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree that historical documents may satisfy the criteria for inclusion stated in WS:WWI, although not every historical document does. WS:WWI’s guidance for including a pre-1923 work (such as The Confirmation Warrant of Phoenix Lodge) rests upon verifiability: such a work “may be included in Wikisource, so long as it is verifiable. Valid sources include uploaded scans and printed paper sources.” That is, it seems to me, precisely what is missing here: a verifiable source indicating that the posted content is in fact a historical document within the scope of our library. What am I overlooking? Tarmstro99 22:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia, the lodge is in possession of a copy of the text. This would qualify as a printed paper source within our policy. In my opinion, we ought to try to obtain a copy of the source, and further that we should not delete the text in question until and unless we can ascertain that it is not possible for any editor to verify the text against that source. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I’m not sure what weight the Wikipedia reference adds to our discussion here (since it is our inclusion policy, not theirs, that governs). I note that even Wikipedia requires that “[a]ll content must be verifiable” and that “[t]he burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material,” which is consistent with our own past practice, and I’m afraid I do not understand the proposal to reverse that burden. We are indisputably not in possession of “uploaded scans and printed paper sources” from which anyone can “verify that the copy displayed at Wikisource is a faithful reproduction.” A document not presently within WS:WWI should be deleted, subject to being recreated if a verifiable source later appears. I believe our past practice has been quite consistent on this point and that a much fuller discussion would be necessary to change that policy for this or any other work. Tarmstro99 18:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
The Wikipedia reference adds only the claim that a printed paper source of this text exists, nothing more. (I did not, and do not, intend to assert based on Wikipedia policy and practices.) We do host works which have print sources but no digital source, and the text in question appears to be another of this sort. Anyone can verify that the copy displayed at Wikisource is a faithful reproduction by comparing it to the offline print copy held by Phoenix Lodge. We don't need to be "in possession" of the source, because we can't be in possession of a print source anyway. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Further to this, I just sent a message to the United Grand Lodge of England requesting a copy of said source text. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
@Tarmstro99: File:The Confirmation Warrant of Phoenix Lodge.pdfBeleg Tâl (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Tarmstro99 12:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)