Wikisource:Proposed deletions

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, 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 Possible copyright violations. 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.

Author-based poem categories[edit]

{{section resolved|1=''' —''' [[User:Mr. Guye|Mr. Guye]] ([[User talk:Mr. Guye|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Mr. Guye|contribs]])  08:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)}}

This section has been concluded as "deleted", but deletion is still in progress because it's a long and annoying task. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The following author-based categories are of the sort that are usually deleted by consensus:

Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Categories that are <form> by <author> should not exist. These are two separate category trees on Wikisource. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
There are two more in case of deletion: Category:Poems by Catullus + Category:Poems by John Donne.— Mpaa (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Agree to remove, noting that they will need to be replaced with something like Category:Russian poetry]]. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
They are subcats of Category:Russian poetry, but yeah the pages in the categories will have to be moved there before the subcats are deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Similarly, there is Category:John Boyle O'Reilly poems‎ as well. Maybe we should get rid of Category:Poems by author entirely? The only item in that category that is worth categorizing as such is Category:Poems written by children. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Category:Poems written by children can exist without being a subcat of Category:Poems by author, which is a misleading supercat anyway, since "children" is a type of author, not a particular author. BD2412 T 13:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Why is it desirable to have a "Poems written by children" cat? Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm ambivalent, but I think the point being made is that it does not run afoul of the particular issue under consideration in this thread, as that category name is not constructed in the same pattern. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I found some more such categories.

Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The Cat:Executive orders and also Proclamations I'm divided in opinion. These are effectively subcategories divided by governmental administrations. They could just as easily be said to be divided by years, and although they could be renamed that way, it is usually much more useful to have then identified by which US president headed that administration. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with you, even though they fit the same pattern. Do you think Presidential memoranda, determinations, radio addresses, notices, and possibly speeches should be kept for the same reason? If not, why? I'm not American and I'm not really familiar with US Presidential official writings. Also keeping in mind that if such American presidential categories are okay, then so are similar categories for presidents, monarchs, and other officials in any country whatsoever. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I would argue that it's not the ruler that's the organizing principle here, but the administration, and a government is not always tied to a particular monarch. In the UK, older documents might indeed be organized by monarch, but only where there is a fixed and established set of official forms of documents to organize under such. But in modern UK, for example, it would not be suitable to have categories for George V, or Elizabeth II, as they are not the head of the UK government. Rather, UK administration is tied to the prime minister. So if we were to extend this principle, it would make more sense to organize by Thatcher, Major, Blair, Cameron, etc. However, I'm not certain whether the PM of the UK issues executive decisions in the same way that a US president does, and certainly did not do so if you go back far enough.
I am not certain that radio addresses should be kept, even for US presidents, as they do not hold the weight found in executive orders or determinations. Those latter are both instruments of executive power, which a radio address is not. This issue is probably one that will need some discussion, some consensus, and a written guideline that we can then point to in future. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I only created the categories because there was no place to put them and other U.S. Presidents have some of the same categories. As for the U. K., I'd say it would be under the Prime Minister once they were head of the government. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Principles of Political Economy[edit]

This page has an inadequate amount of content to be kept.Mr. Guye 01:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The page was just started, and it's actively growing. So there's no reason to delete at this time. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Scan of 2nd ed: Hrishikes (talk) 01:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
We should definitely be working to a scan for such a renowned work. Little value in bringing in a text only, we may as well just link to one. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
The author page has links to scans for the 2nd edition and for the 1st US edition, but not for the original UK edition. If someone does locate a scan, we can do a match-and-split. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
We should not do a match and split for such works. It has long been discussed and proposed that without edition data that match and split is problematic, and the community at those earlier times had a tacit agreement to abide by that point of view. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I suppose this is about Principles_of_Political_Economy_(Malthus) ? --Dick Bos (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The Flowers of Evil (1857) and The Flowers of Evil (1861)[edit]

Not actually versions or translations of The Flowers of Evil, but rather just a list of what poems were contained in each original French edition. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The lists could be merged and moved to a subpage of Author:Charles Baudelaire since they are lists of individual poems. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, or to a section of the author page itself Author:Charles BaudelaireBeleg Tâl (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I think it would be too long to place on the Author page itself. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


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)


Non-commercial restriction makes it incompatible with Wikisource's CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. Prosody (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

It wouldn't be applicable to us anyway; it's not the type of thing that would be relevant in a case in a US court. Definitely delete.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
The work to which it is attached also needs a check. Not sufficient information at the moment for any sort of judgement. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
It appears that the noncommercial clause was added to DPRK law in 2006, after the 1996 URAA cutoff, so Aegukka (1945) should still be hostable as {{PD-1996}}. It appears to still be under copyright in source country. See relevant discussions: w:Talk:Aegukka#Copyright status of Aegukka, w:Talk:Aegukka#Copyright status updated, Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-DPRKGov, Commons:Deletion requests/File:The National Anthem of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (Converted MIDI).ogg. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how the noncommercial clause is relevant. It doesn't affect whether or not the work is copyrighted, so it would have no effect in US law.
Also, the URAA date for North Korea would be in 2003, because that's when North Korea first signed the Berne Convention, the first copyright treaty they had with the US. 1996 is only for countries that had signed the Berne Convention or the WTO at that point. Afghanistan, for example, has a URAA date in 2016.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Hm, I think I see what you're getting at. If the work was PD in the PDRK in 2003 (URAA date) then it's PD in the US currently. If the work was copyrighted but permission given to use and distribute the work for any purpose, then in 2006 that permission was restricted to noncommercial use only—then the work is copyrighted in the USA, and if we are bound to follow what is essentially a relicensing in 2006, then the work needs to be deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Turpie Dog[edit]

Originally added with no header, no source, and no license. The text now appears to be an "original" work of the contributor with no published source text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

It's a folktale that(as far as I know) has not been published. Does it belong somewhere else? JustinCB (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
If it's never been published, it doesn't belong here. It sounds like you'll want to look up self-publishing sites, since Wikimedia doesn't really cater to that market. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
I didn't write it, it's a folktale. I might've put it to paper(or bits, as the case may be), but I reckon it's been told since the Skags(the family of the first two white men in Tennesee[they were brothers, long hunters]) were still in Scotland. JustinCB (talk) 02:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
But the words you used are your own; you wrote this edition. On Wikisource, we don't create original editions. If the folktale is an oral tradition, that's great, but we need a published edition (in PD) in order to host a copy here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
There was some earlier talk about oral tradition at a wiki, and the Wikisources, nor the sister wikis chose to not expand their scopes. I personally see that it is aligned with Wikibooks, though I am not sure that they do. At this point it is a hole in the market, though not one filled by Wikisource. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Can you see if the wikibooks people want it, and if it can be sent there? JustinCB (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
@JustinCB: feel free to ask them yourself, at b:Wikibooks:Reading room/GeneralBeleg Tâl (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
I have asked at b:Wikibooks:Requests for import.--Jusjih (talk) 03:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
@JustinCB: Imho it is in something of a grey area, relative to Wikibooks. You might be able to help with either of two questions I have asked, to help clarify the situation, at b:Wikibooks:RFI#Import from Wikisource (indeed, I see some hints above toward the first question). --Pi zero (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Searching Turpie Dog on the web gets too few results, so I cannot help save the work. Maybe move to user's subpage?--Jusjih (talk) 02:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
If that were needed as a temporary measure, perhaps it could be done — if there were a long-term exit strategy to get it out of userspace. --Pi zero (talk) 02:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Please don't delete it until there's a place found for it(you can move it to my userspace, though) JustinCB (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Constitution of the Principality of Sealand[edit]

I own a copy of the Constitution of Sealand, it is not what I saw in that article. I can't find precedent for deletion of articles that are inaccurate (weird), so I think we could debate that now. If someone was to prove they had copyright permissions, and possibly sourced it, they should start a new article rather than edit this one. Thank you all! MattLongCT (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

What is different about it? I haven't looked very closely, but it looks similar to the 1975 constitution on the Sealand website.—The copyright issue is an interesting one though. The Sealand website says "This documentation is free for personal use", which is insufficient for hosting on Wikisource, and I would be surprised if {{PD-EdictGov}} covered works from states not recognized by the US. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Beleg Tâl, that makes a bit of sense. Piecing it together, this is a copy of the constitution of the rebel government. This would be an accurate copy of the Sealand Constitution availble for 10$ (You buy them.). Generally, when people are referring to the "Principality of Sealand" it isn't this rather obscure group (who have been sort of inactive for years and are only known about if you look up Sealand's history). As the Micronation of Sealand is run by the owners of the [] website, having this hosted here as a portrayal of Sealand would just lead to confusion. Thanks! MattLongCT (talk) 00:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Politics of the United States/Carl Schurz[edit]

And its subcategories. More categorization by author, which is superfluous to listings at Author:Carl Schurz. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg KeepQuestion Question. For the reasons on my talk page. There are a LOT of articles related to Carl Schurz and the category becomes hard to navigate without. If this subcategory is deleted, I recommend an improved sorting of the parent category to improve readability. Would this be possible? Are there alternatives that should be looked at?MattLongCT (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Keep. . . why? Why should this topic be subcategorized by author? Why should two different methods of categorizing be mixed? What reason for changing the established practise do you offer?
As for sorting: Some of them are about race relations; some are about the "Indian Problem", and those would be separate categories in which to place the items, according to the specific topics addressed. Quite a few of these items are not about US politics, and don't belong in that category. The Letters and Addresses would appear in those categories. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per nom. Green Giant (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I think perhaps this should be clarified(what is and isn't included), possibly renamed, and made a subcatergory of the authour page. JustinCB (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:Musical score[edit]

Template designed to generate variable category names for musical scores. It generated categorization "by alphabet", which we do in all categories anyway; and also categorizes by author, which we do not do on Wikisource.

It is far easier to simply add the categories directly without the burden of the template than it would be to maintain a template like this with every possible variant category set to an ifeq check. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Is it supposed to be used in File namespace with scores stored as images? Or is it meant to be used with LilyPond/ABC digitised ones? Some template might be useful for both of the cases, but the current implementation does not look too useful indeed. --Base (talk) 16:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
No, the template is intended for use in the Main namespace to automatically generate structured category names, which makes it very limiting. The person who created the template comes from working on Wikipedia, and does not understand about backing scans on Commons or multiple namespaces. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I created this template for LilyPond/ABC digitised scores. Preambulist (talk) 08:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral. I see benefit to having an auto-categorization of music-by-year, music-by-country, and music-by-instrument. Is there any further reason to delete this template if the author-categories are removed and the template does not display any output in mainspace?—Or perhaps could some of these features be added to the header template? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Huh? It's only function right now is to generate category links according to a limited set and restricted category name structure. If the template displays no output, then it serves no function at all, and why would we keep it? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete It's not something I would use with LilyPond scores (and I do the vast majority of them here), because in most cases the score is contained within a work that we are hosting. The articles in DMM that contain a score are already categorised, as are the hymns in The Army and Navy Hymnal. "By year" is already available from the header template in the mainspace. "By country" is covered by the work containing the score. "By instrument" would be useful if we were intending to be a major score repository but, with only a few people doing any score work at all, this is somewhat moot. We are not going to be competing with IMSLP as a repository—who do the categorisation stuff well. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Index:An Ainu–English–Japanese Dictionary.djvu[edit]

Hi there,

I uploaded this on Commons a few months ago. It was tagged as incomplete. I found a newer version that I uploaded on Commons and I'm working on the match and split phase here : Index:An Ainu-English-Japanese dictionary (including a grammar of the Ainu language).djvu. So Index:An Ainu–English–Japanese Dictionary.djvu is now redundant. Assassas77 (talk) 09:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done BD2412 T 22:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Green Giant (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

NIST Koblitz Curves Parameters[edit]

It looks like this isn't even an excerpt from FIPS document but restated information. Prosody (talk) 07:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I've moved it to Digital Signature Standard (DSS) and added Index:Fips186-2-change1.pdf to back it —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I've updated links that previously pointed to the deleted page [1] --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


This was once a valid template, but Afghanistan has adopted a life+50 copyright law[2], and has joined the WTO[3] 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)

Previous revision of File:Astounding Science Fiction (1950-01).djvu[edit]

Contains copyright-renewed story from Isaac Asimov. Replaced scan has the pages removed. -Einstein95 (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

It's hosted on Commons, so a Commons admin needs to delete it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Green Giant (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Short_Titles_Act_1896 and subpages...[edit]

Deletion proposed as the approach used to generate this is for some reason a layout generation method that is apparently incompatible with the new parser. I'd rather focus on getting stuff that actually DOES work, then trying to maintain or update something that was largely experimental when originally transcluded.

That is unless someone is prepared to fully document how to do the layout for a document like this in a manner that works consistently in both Page namespace and when transcluded in sections, which are needed due to the size of the table(s) when transcluded.

It's a shame that a technical update will sadly mean the loss of something considerable effort was put into.

The actual underlying pages are probably okay to retain, and I had already simplified down the generation template with a view to having it subst en masse.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

What's actually wrong with it? It appears to work for me with normal transclusion: <pages index="Public General Statutes 1896.djvu" from=34 fromsection="59_Vict_14_Sch1_PreUnion" to=232 />. The problem I see is that the table is so long that it exceeds the Mediawiki software's configured limits, which is just how it is - 200 pages of dense tabulation is simply too long to be a single page. Why not just break it up artificially into sections? You could use the sessions by monarch, perhaps combining shorter ones to give manageable chunks. Say, "Edward III—Anne", "George I–George II", etc? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 14:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Which is the approach currently used... However the layout generation breaks because of how the new parser handles the {{nop}} in body needed to force a table row starting markup to a newline when rendering.. One the current parser this works. On the new parser because of changes in how HTML is cleaned up, the nop may be be moved outside of the generated table ( 'fostered content' error) which means the code it generates appears in the wrong place, causing incorrect rendering of some table rows regardless of them being templated or not. However, it is my understanding that a patch is being written for Mediwiki to address this situation. 22:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I missed the "next" link on that page, I thought that was it. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 01:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
How do you see it with a different parser? It doesn't look broken to me: which row are you concerned about? Linter errors are annoying but they're not breakage in my book. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 22:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough, you are welcome to try to get a consistent layout out of this then... and the other work noted below... However so far it seems impossible to have a version that renders both Page: s and the transclusion on a clean manner than matches up with the scans consistently. Rather than continuing to thrash back and forth with "clever-fixes" that only partially adress the issue, it's better to start again with an approach that is KNOWN to work consistently in the first place. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
But what is the inconsistency between Page and Main namespaces? If its just the linter error with {{nop}}, that affects every multi-page table at WS, it doesn't affect the work's presentation visually, and there's a software fix on the way. Why not wait for that fix to land and then worry about fixing any linter errors if there are any and/or bot out the nops if no longer needed? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 01:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Withdrawn ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Chronological Table and Index of the Statutes[edit]

Same problem as above namely, an experimental layout that refuses to behave nicely when trying to tag match it so it behaves consistently. Delete and let's start again with ONE approach that works consistently in ALL namespaces. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


This photo has been hosted on Wikisource since 2006, and is used only on the uploader's userpage. The uploader has only ever made two edits on all Wikimedia projects - one to upload the photo and one to create the userpage. Even Commons accepts a small number of personal images for use by users who contribute in some way - is there any reason to keep this photo? It could have been moved to Commons but there is no license. Note: the file was unsuccessfully tagged for speedy deletion a few years ago. Green Giant (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Everything mitigates against keeping it for me. Not from someone who has edited outside their userspace, and it doesn't have a license, so let's delete it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)