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).


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

Individual birth year categories: 2000 BCE - 1000 BCE[edit]

These categories are so sparsely used, they are useless for the purpose of grouping similar items, in this case cohort authors of a given year, together. Instead they serve to divide these ancient authors from each other!

If these author birthdates could be reduced to decades in which they were born, they could all be scanned by a reader who wants a population picture of the different authors of this era by means of the decade categories in about thirty seconds, but as it is, it takes about eight minutes to find them all. And I use the word "all" advisedly because so far we have three authors at the most listed in these thousand categories!

I think Pathoschild went overboard with this idea he came up with, and that the categories should deleted, and the "author" template tools used to place these and future ancient authors placed in their respective estimated decade categories. If we have a specific year, it can be put in the "notes" section of the Author: page. ResScholar (talk) 05:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Between these and the corresponding death year categories for the same period Special:UnusedCategories is unusable for maintenance. Only the first 5,000 items are listed there, sorted by ASCII, and we reach 2007 and run out. As a result any unused category beginning with a letter can't be monitored. I propose that the death year categories are managed in the same way. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support both proposals (birth and death). I would actually suggest removing the 1000 BCE - 500 BCE range as well. I only found ten authors born in that period and 500 BCE would take us up to roughly the classical era. (In fact, we could probably lose the decade categories too, and stick with centuries, or even one category each for pre-1000/500 BCE births and deaths.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support AdamBMorgan's view.--Mpaa (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I disagree with Adam's proposal. I don't disagree with the spirit of Pathoschild's endeavor, and finding ten authors in a four minute search is not the same as three authors in an eight minute search. More importantly, after 1000 BCE we start to have chronicles accurate to within a year of different cultures, particularly that of Israel. By contrast, the pre-1000 BCE dates are only accurate to within 35 years at best (I just found out, except for King David) and present a misleading depiction of the accuracy of the birth and death dates. We could finesse the situation and place the cut-off date for yearly categories at 800 BCE which would include everyone except some fragments by Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian and Chinese kings, whom admittedly it wouldn't hurt to lump together by decade, but I am all for keeping it as simple as possible and using a round number like 1000. If we do want to lump the early authors together in some way, we could originate a 700 BCE and earlier "Prehistoric authors" category, which Pathoschild, the person who originated the "Ancient authors" category, suggested long before we got around to discussing the matter. ResScholar (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • More thoughts on this: Deleting the unused 500-1000 BCE birth and death years would help our users find the relevant authors in the grid displayed in each century. But they would be user-unfriendly for newcomers who might be brave enough to introduce an author page for that era and then find their birth and death year categories red-linked and not know why.
  • I introduced a limited deletion in hopes of attracting interested parties in organizing these author "era" categories, starting with something we could all agree on and then discussing more involved issues in a larger forum like the Scriptorium. It turns out we did agree, Pathoschild himself stating he had no objection to the removal of the categories. But I found the process getting carried away by Adam and Mpaa who had apparently thought about these issues even more than I had and, their imaginations being less limited than mine, thought they could summon interested parties and informally present consequent proposals in a single administrative action. Holding the two processes separate in my thinking, I wasn't prepared to explain my reasoning very well when the time came, so I apologize if I fostered the impression that I was trying to arbitrarily direct the discussion.
  • But as for my second bullet point, although these same grids could also be used to aid in the speed of navigation of the 2000 BCE - 1000 BCE works as well, I think the inaccuracy of author birth and death years of that era that I eventually discovered still should override the continued existence of those years. And as I stated, I am of two minds about the unused birth and death years for the 500 BCE - 1000 BCE works, but think we should keep the used years, as I stated before, due to the accuracy of records from that era.
  • Moving forward with an observation, possibly for a larger discussion: The "Ancient authors" category has 290 items so this is what we could do: We could allow users to add birth and death dates in the header template, have them appear automatically in their respective categories (either red-linked or pre-originated in the way we have it now). And then WE go back and add a century category to group them by centuries as Adam suggested. That would produce categories with (290 ÷ 11 centuries ≈ 26) an average of 26 authors per century. And we could add an explanation in the century categories that the authors are double categorized and only very newly added authors would only be found in each century category's respective decade categories. ResScholar (talk) 05:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • We definitely should be concatenating the BC birth and death categories by some means. I would think that anything that is BCE could be removed as an individual year, and then group by decade, century or millennium, whatever others consider appropriate. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I propose splitting the "Ancient authors" (though keeping the category), and you re-propose lumping the BCE categories! I think these philosophies deserve further explication because I expect opinions would differ on how best to keep these time categories organized.
      • I completed the 2000 BCE - 1000 BCE deletions today, so the topics that Adam broached can pursued without distraction. I combined them all into 2nd millenium BCE categories Category:2nd millenium BCE births, e.g. to keep them neat, and placed those categories in their respective Category:Births by century or Category:Deaths by century category, with a sort key to keep them first in the list. I also added a 100 unit "decade grid" of each decade to the millenium categories, just as a century category sometimes contains a 100 unit "year grid". The grid could use some neatening, but I wanted to wait in case I needed to undo.
      • I spoke vaguely about this and that year being a good boundary date for particular purposes. Billinghurst has joined the interest taken in reforming the categories, so I will get started in gathering the facts to which various sorting philosophies would be applied to help our fellow Wikisourceans decide for themselves what they think is the best way to proceed.
      • To not build suspense, my main concern with Billinghurst's proposal would be the loss of accuracy in the birth and death dates where a user places them on the author page. And if the author template could somehow be reworked to round the numbers automatically, we would still lose the birth time sequence at the very least of the three authors now shown in the 480s BCE authors category. ResScholar (talk) 11:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
        I am not proposing any change to the author pages, just how we concatenate into the categories, so to the underlying template {{author}}. There is already some coding and to me, if we look to manipulate anything that is BCE, we can probably get some better groupings. Too late for anything problem solving, just the abstract idea. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
        1. We don't need to be a drastic as I suggested above. It was only an idea.
        2. There's no need to change author pages for any of this. The categorisation made by {{author}} can be adjusted instead; I've been trying to make it smarter anyway. The template {{is year}} can return an appropriate decade or century as required. We just need to decide on a cut off. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
        My suggestions are back to year zero, no change; 0-100BCE, ... 400-500 BCE; 500-1000BCE, 1000BCE+ ... KISS. This is based on that I have never even looked at any of the categories, and presuming that we are talking in the area of 100 to 200 authors. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
        You two's suggestions would spoil Pathoschild's "era" divisions. And they would deny a curious user's ability to "zoom out" by going to year cat then decade cat then century cat. And they would cost precision in 480s BCE decade category and possibly others as I've already mentioned. ResScholar (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
        Then suggest a better grouping. Pathoschild's implementation is based on which factual source? And yes, it would destroy the zoom out functionality, and it would definitely spoil the worse drill down to emptiness which occurs in so many places. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
        Sorry I missed seeing your reply. The Library of Congress Classification uses 600 CE and 700 CE as divisions for Greek and Latin works respectively between ancient and later. Pathoschild couldn't have selected both, could he? I don't know why he picked 1420 as mediaeval, but it's very close to the fall of the Byzantine Empire in 1453, which is a standard division between mediaeval and later.
        I wanted to propose my suggested grouping (double categorization by both century and year), described above, in the Scriptorium, but it turns out from my account of each ancient century at the end of this section, that it looks like about a fourth of the ancient authors' birth dates aren't being placed in a century or year at all. Since one [or the only?] Maintenance of the Month for November is undated works, I was thinking of enlarging the Maintenance to include undated ancient authors. However we accomplish the task, we can redo the tally, and I can do my proposal on the Scriptorium. The tally seems necessary because it prevents conflicts that might arise from people making sweeping generalizations about the population of the categories.
        I try to think ahead, and I had the idea of adding century cats to the mediaeval life dates as well. And the question of whether to do it collides with a third idea I had for improvement, that is of removing a lot of the mediaeval popes as authors (and consequently from birth and death date categories) that Sherurcij added a long time back, as it seems to be the case that a lot of them have no recorded writings. This could be done fairly quickly by looking to see if any works are mentioned on each pope's Catholic Encyclopedia entry available here on Wikisource.
        So I will check to see who is involved in doing the Maintenance of the Month and see if it's in any way convenient to add it. Otherwise I will start to work on them myself. ResScholar (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Facts about works to which categorization will apply[edit]


Civilization: Greece

Earliest date known to within about one year: 776 BCE
Event of earliest date: First Olympic Games
Earliest author known to within about one year: w:Solon
Life years of author: 638 BCE-558 BCE

Civilization: Israel

Earliest date known to within about one year: 931 BCE
Event of earliest date: Death of Solomon/Rebellion of under w:Rehoboam
Earliest author known to within about one year: Solomon
Life years of author:  ? – 931 BCE

Notes: Authorship of various works is disputed, but usually not his existence. I was wrong about David’s death date being accurate to a year; Solomon’s reign was 40 years, which may be a figurative expression. Method of dating: The w:Assyrian Siege of Jerusalem (701 BCE) was dated from archeological studies of Assyrian documents w:Sennacherib’s Annals and applied to the event mentioned in three books of the bible and then back-dated back to Solomon’s reign according to the list of regnal years of the series of Kings of Judah.

Civilization: Assyria and Babylon

Earliest date known to within about one year: around 900 BCE
Event of earliest date: none
Authorship: See below

Notes: w:Chronology of the ancient Near East states “The chronologies of Mesopotamia depend significantly on the chronology of Ancient Egypt” and “around 900 BC, historical data, written records become more numerous once more, with the rise of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, enabling the certain assignments of absolute dates.”

The w:Assyro-Babylonian Literature article only shows one work after that time period by individuals significant to have their birth or death years listed: w:Babylonian Chronicles. These would have to be edicts by various Babylonian Kings after around 900 BC, if there are any actual quotation of edicts in these chronicles (I haven’t looked), often written centuries after the events they describe.

Civilization: Egyptian

Earliest date known to within about a year: 1069-525 BCE.
Event of earliest date: Unlisted synchronization of chronology with known historical event from three years down to one year.
Earliest author known to within one year: First tomb biography existing from that period after the above-mentioned event with life span described in terms of regnal years.
Life years of author: ? - ?

w:Conventional Egyptian chronology states: “The dates of Dynasties 21 to 26 are from Kenneth Kitchen (1973), supplemented by Ian Shaw (2000). There is a 60 year discrepancy between the dates proposed by these two authors.”

The reference section speaks of three competing chronologies (high, middle and low) put forward by Kitchen, so I would guess the authors of the Wikipedia article must have picked the one that matches Shaw’s the best, and the 60-year discrepancy refers to the one that matches the worst. This guess is borne out by two dates listed side by side for Ramesses XI’s death date, used as the end of the 20th Dynasty (1072/1069 BC). So apparently about a three-year accuracy range is available at the 21st Dynasty which at some point or points tapers down to one year by the end of the 26th Dynasty in 525 BC, as there is no mention of date discrepancies in the article on the Persian invasion of Egypt.

w:Ancient Egyptian Literature only mentions tomb biographies as potential sources of author life dates after 1069 BCE.

Civilization: Chinese

Earliest date known to within about a year: 841 BCE.
Event of earliest date: Exile of King Li of the Zhou Dynasty.
Earliest author known to within one year: Authors in w:Classic of documents, such as w:Marquis Wen of Jin.
Life years of author: 805-746 BCE

Note: See w:List of rulers of China for 841 BC date.

Civilization: Indian

Earliest author known to within one year: w:Aryabhata. Life years of author: 476-550 CE

Note: Earliest listed on w:List of historic Indian texts

[Addition: "List of historic Indian texts" doesn't include rock carvings, so I was able to find w:Ashoka of the Mauryan dynasty (304-232 BCE) who had the w:Edicts of Ashoka carved during his reign from 269 BCE to 231 BCE.] ResScholar (talk) 08:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

[Addition w:Arthashastra of the same dynasty is attibuted to w:Chandragupta Maurya (lived c. 350 - 283 BCE)] ResScholar (talk) 08:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Civilization: Persian

Earliest author known to within one year w:Darius the Great. Life years of author: 550-486 BCE

Note: w:Behistun Inscription is the work.ResScholar (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC) Clarification: 18:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


Death century tallies will obviously be similar.

BCE: 10th, 0; 9th, 0; 8th, 3; 7th, 1; 6th, 7.
BCE: 5th, 19; 4th, 14; 3rd, 13; 2nd, 9; 1st, 19.
CE: 1st, 35; 2nd, 22; 3rd, 16; 4th, 24; 5th, 10.
CE: 6th, 10, 7th, 24; 8th, 14, 9th, 7; 10th, 19, 11th, 28, 12th, 42.

ResScholar (talk) 06:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Ancient Popes with no writings[edit]

In addition to mediaeval popes, I also found some popes from the Ancient era with no recorded writings:

[I updated this list on November 20th, comparing it with the Documenta Catholica Omnia website. Unfortunately, although this website does in some places speak to the authenticity of the writings of the early popes, in other places it offers no opinion. In order to positively discount the authenticity of a certain pope's writing, I have had to rely on explicit statements from the Catholic Encyclopedia, {nevertheless,} the absence of which {in the cases where a pope's alleged writings are not referred to as primary sources} suggests to me a lack of certainty on their part, rather than a positive endorsement of their authenticity; and that {to me} this {seeming} lack of certainty is also {ultimately the primary reason} why they did not mention these works as primary sources in each pope's Catholic Encyclopedia Entry.]

Marcellus I

John I

There are also some Ancient popes whose only recorded writings are spurious. These writings by other persons, well-meaning or otherwise, are attributed to the following popes:

Evaristus, Pius I, Urban I, Fabian and Lucius I. Also Felix I and Mark. Reclassified as works being spurious but not absent: Telesphorus, Zephyrinus and Anterus. Also Anastasius II

This covers 33 CE to 254 422 495 600 CE. I will continue to add more up to 600 CE while my day-to-day health keeps up, then finish the tally. ResScholar (talk) 09:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC) 07:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC) 12:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


Can one of the involved; summarize the outcome of this discussion? Jeepday (talk) 12:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirects[edit]

Should these redirects be speedy deleted per Wikisource:Deletion_policy#Miscellaneous: Tales of Rabbi Nachman, Talk:Tales of Rabbi Nachman and similar?--Mpaa (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

They should be kept at least until all pages linking to them are updated to link to the new location. Also, when a page is moved, it takes some time for search engines to know that the page has moved. Further, in this case, according to Google there are existing mentions of the page on a few websites. The talk pages can probably be deleted, though. --Eliyak T·C 19:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


Seems to me to be quite a pointless template. If a proposed policy is under development, then it is labelled as such, but it is only proposed. This template is for policies, which we would not people just adding to. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:popup note[edit]

I believe that this template which is just a reverse implementation of {{tooltip}} should be dispensed with. The rendition should be reversed as a conversion to tooltip, and then replace with a redirect. I cannot see the point of the back to front version. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Went through this over the pr-typos/corrections.js "debate" & while its true that PopupNote seems to be just reversing params {{{2}}} & {{{1}}} of ToolTip, for the most part, - the remaining issue where one template or the other used {{{named}}} parameters initially while the other(s) didn't making the straight-forward solution not so simple. At some point in time, a similar consolidation of like-function templates took place (3rd template?) and that's when it dawned on somebody the target and the tip parameters were reversed in some cases and I believe the deprecated template at that time filled in as way to overcome that lack of named parameters/reverse order issue.
Now if there is a way to standardize both families via Bot into a single template (or w/ the loser becoming a redirect), I'd gladly support the deletion. Without any progress on that front, I'd have to lean towards oppose. -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
You folks do realise {{SIC}} chains to {{popup note}}, don't you? There is probably a lot more usage of this template than immediately meets the eye. In all other respects I concur with GOIII (well, I didn't know the history..) above. 16:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Couldn't {{SIC}} be based on {{tooltip}} instead? The true usage of {{popup note}} would be much less then.--Mpaa (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
As originator of this template, I'd like to note that it predates {{tooltip}} by about a year, at least on this site. It was created without knowledge that the the similar w:Template:tooltip existed on Wikipedia, by replicating some code found elsewhere on the net. However, it appears likely that User:Bob Burkhardt was aware of {{popup note}} when he copied over tooltip from Wikipedia, as he changed the colour of the dotted line to cornflowerblue (from black on Wikipedia) to match. I agree the templates should be merged, but I think "popup note" or similar is more descriptive and therefore easier to remember (for those without a comp sci background) than "tooltip". --T. Mazzei (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


Unused template, that is unused presumably because no one really likes blink. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I think its more a matter of the browser in use - most don't actually render the "blinking" by design. Leaning delete but it could be kept just as well to prevent re-creation or to further explain the browser's that accept the attribute, etc. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Author:Copyright Office[edit]

It only links to one page, which is in the Portal namespace.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

And? —SamB (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Possibly we should just convert it to a redirect for now. There are other copyright offices, so it is quite possible we will have works produced by one of these at some point in time. If and when that happens, we can change the redirect to a disambiguation page. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Command & Conquer Encyclopedia[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted as a clear copyvio per the user agreement at the parent website
This work is an encyclopedia for recent computer games. It seems as if it is a user-made work. Even if it were not, it would still likely be under copyright.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
It appears to be from On one hand, that could possibly count as published (I don't know how that website works). On the other, that page claims a copyright and I can't find a release anywhere. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Report of Col. David Jewett, February 1st, 1821[edit]

Report of Col. David Jewett, Commander of the privateer Heroina, to the Supreme Director of Buenos Aires, February 1st, 1821

Text is not verifiable. It is an old text but apparently it has never been published, and the editors involved in the transcription are not willing/able to upload a scan.


Regards, --Langus-TxT (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Leaning keep. Either scans or publication is a very literal reading of that policy. I think being in a national archive is closer to 'should be in your local public library' than 'I have the only copy and I can't let you see it but it's totally real, honest' on the spectrum of verifiability. I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia's policies to know what that means for its reference there though, that's for you guys to hash out. Prosody (talk) 05:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Keep, historical document. It is unfortunate that it is not verifiable, though that just comes to labelling, not disputing its existence nor the hosting of the text, though if there are concerns about the veracity, then we should tag its talk page. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

CIA World Fact Book[edit]

This page should not be redirected to CIA World Fact Book, 2004. Instead, we should copy the latest edition to Wikisource.--GZWDer (talk) 13:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to have this be a disambig page to different years of the Fact Book? I.e., it could link to the 2005, 2006, 2007, etc., Fact Books.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Keep as disambig page.--Jusjih (talk) 04:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Ozymandias of Egypt[edit]

It seem to detail the same text as is at Ozymandias (Shelley), but with less accompanying paraphernalia. I suggest merging/redirecting. It Is Me Here t / c 17:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

There was a Young Lady of Dorking[edit]

So far as I can tell it's an original poem based on one of Edward Lear's. Prosody (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

A poem by Lear does exist under that name, so I've replaced it with the original. —Clockery Fairfeld [t] 03:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The Satanic Verses of Bhagavad-gita[edit]

Apparently published only through self-publishing and archiving venues. Prosody (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


This is a prophet in the biblical book of Jeremiah. The person is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia or Wikidata based on my hunting, so I think it should be deleted from the Author space. Although a historic/historical figure from the Bible, I was unable to find any authored works. Tertiaryresources (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support I believe this shows a complete misunderstanding of the Author: workspace (as I perceive it) in WikiSource. Whether the author is "notable" or otherwise (as if that is even defined!) is entirely irrelevant in the W/S context. The author space is:
  1. A collection point of/for individuals determined to be potential authors (what else could a [false?] prophet be?)
  2. On opportunity to provide a source of cross-linkage between works which may be originated by (or refer to) an individual (presumed to be real; as opposed to fictional.)
  3. (Pre-supposing no work will ever be found demonstrates an extraordinarily prescient knowledge of archaeology. I wish I shared that amazing skill. Cattiness mode subsequently switched OFF.)
My 2¢. Kindly set me straight if I have misunderstood anything. AuFCL (talk) 00:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I, too, may be misunderstanding, so clarification from anyone is welcome. I was basing my request on the Help:Author pages section where it says, "Contra-indications for creation of an Author page (when in doubt post to Proposed deletions): Where a person is the subject of one or more works, but is not a creator of written work." I wasn't able to find any authored works by Hananiah. I suppose it's true that Hananiah's works may be discovered in the future through archaeology, but that could be true of any person who ever lived. And on the same vein, every living person is a potential author, so Wikisource's Author space could in theory be filled with everyone who has ever lived or is currently living. But again, I welcome clarification from other folks in the community since I don't deal with this topic enough to count myself as knowledgeable in this arena. Thanks for the feedback! Tertiaryresources (talk) 12:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete - not likely to have authored any works that en.WS can/will host. "Characters", even those considered of note, in a story or work do not warrant inclusion in the author namespace; must be a "true" author, editor, contributor or similar to be listed here. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Objection withdrawn per above. You do realise that this call is going to discourage tagging of potential "authors" mentioned in open text whilst proofreading? Personally I feel this is a retrograde move, but concede it is closer to the "transcribe without analysis" spirit. Sad. Red-links are not so hard to suppress. AuFCL (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Author:Participants in the Cape Town Meeting[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted. The list of participants was merged as they were the original persons drafting then signing the Cape Town Open Education Declaration. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
This "author" is actually an incomplete list of individuals signing onto meeting participants and co-authors of the Cape Town Open Education Declaration. According to the Wikipedia article, "As of January 2014, over 2,400 individuals and 250 organisations have signed the declaration." The group does not appear to be an organisation per se, otherwise we could just move it from the Author space to the Portal space per Help:Author pages: "Contra-indications for creation of an Author page (when in doubt post to Proposed deletions): Where a work is the creation of an organization, use a Portal in place of an Author page." I suggest deleting the Author page since the Author namespace doesn't seem to apply as a good match for this purpose. But on the same token, I hate to lose the work that's been done on this page: Could we just move the list to the Wikipedia page as "notable signatories" or something? Thoughts? Tertiaryresources (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
An alternative to deleting the page could be moving it to a subpage of Cape Town Open Education Declaration itself, say, to Cape Town Open Education Declaration/Authors or similar. However, I'm not sure that that is allowed or not, so I'd suggest waiting for another opinion. —Clockery Fairfeld [t] 15:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Author:Umar the Almohad[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Keep. Author identified.
After lots of searching on the Internet (and a few scholarly databases/books), I'm not able to find any information on this person to substantiate his existence. When I checked Wikipedia, he's not included in the List of Almohad caliphs nor in the list of people named Umar. Unless someone else has better luck, I'd like to suggest that we delete the page. Thanks! Tertiaryresources (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
This him? It looks he has the same ordinal position in Portal:Caliphs as that fellow does in the Wikipedia list. Prosody (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Well spotted! That looks like the most likely candidate, so I went ahead and connected the Wikidata item and removed the PROD tag. Thanks again for finding that! Tertiaryresources (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)