Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2005-12

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page.
This is a discussion archive first created in December 2005, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.

September 2005

Math, cryptography & source code

Moved lengthy discussion to talk page.
The discussion was continued at Wikisource talk:What Wikisource includes, where there seems to be a clear consensus against deletion. --ArnoldReinhold 15:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Wikisource:Logo does not belong here. ThomasV 11:06, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree - why not? Where does it belong?
      • Do separate sub-domains have different logos? I wasn't aware that they did. If they do, then this might be something we want here (if we want to change ours, that is). Otherwise, it should go on the multilingual Wikisource.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 03:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 2005

Keep it, it's a good read and it's good quality, even though it's work-in-progress. 22:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I registered an account now. Please don't think I'm a sockpuppet even though this is my first post on wikisource :) Jeroen 23:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
works in progress should really be over at wikibooks. Wolfman 22:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Wikisource does not accept collaborative projects. Something like that needs to go to a different wiki, or go to a personal web page if nothing of the sort will accept this.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wholeheartedly agree; wikibooks seems like a nice place for it. --Kiwibird 17:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it 06:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 2005


  • Alfred Woodward - Encyclopedic. J.Steinbock
    • Delete--BirgitteSB 20:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure -- on the one hand, this seems not particularly notable, on the other hand it's supplementary source material for someone in wikipedia. The author of this page, Richard Norton, has included many such texts. I have the impression this is related to a family geneological project. While the possibility of a personal agenda bothers me a bit, I find it hard to argue with his entries which are from published sources. This one is from the Journal of the DuPage County Bar Association[1], which I suppose is published but hardly in a notable place. It does however state "All Rights Reserved", so this might be a copyvio. Wolf man 16:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if its not a copyvio. Apwoolrich 19:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Albert Parsons - Autobiography or nonesense? J.Steinbock
    • Keep Should be Sourced but an autobiography of a man born in 1848 is an acceptable text.--BirgitteSB 20:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. Its a valid Autobiography, but needs sorting out as to provenence etc. Apwoolrich 19:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • John Frelinghuysen - possibly wikipedia material, or we could possibly include all of Appelton's cyclopedia as with EB1911. I think this lone extract doesn't belong by itself though, as it's not really an attempt at archiving a work. The intent, as with many of this editor's entries, is biographical. A gray area perhaps, but I would transwiki this. Wolf man 05:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we do include Appleton's Cyclopaedia of American Biography, don't forget that several hundred biographies in it are fake see [[2]] for details. The modern Gale reprint does not note which are fakes, and should we ever adopt the entire work as we have EB1911 it would be the means for people to identify them and flag then upApwoolrich 19:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, all of these are biographical entries added by the same user. Now, since most of these have been sourced to some published work or another (and sometimes "published" is used in a loose sense), I can't see us deleting them for that reason, since it technically does fall under our guidelines. And I don't really have a problem with these (I think a number of them are referenced by WP). However, many of these are not PD sources, and copyright problems might be pop up (however, since this is such a minor aspect of WS, this isn't likely). Still, though, the ones that are published with permission...should we insist on getting documented evidence to back up that this is in fact used with permission. I am sort of dreading this with all of the past copyright debates; this is all a bit much in one time. Again, I don't think there is any problem with these texts being on Wikisource except for a possible copyright infringement (which is probably non-existent, since I am trusting the editor actually does have permission--we should probably still have it documented).—Zhaladshar (Talk) 01:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i know that the editor asserts that he is copyright holder to some of these works ... memoirs and so forth (presumably a family inheritance). i don't know how you go about proving that easily. in fact, i don't know how you go about proving any 'used by permission' claims without independently contacting the copyright holder. if the editor is lying about having permission, he can quite as easily type up a fake 'permission' email in a minute or so. while we can insist on this, ultimately we are relying on the editor's veracity whether he provides a simple statement or some 'documentation' (that we do not independently obtain). so, we should probably take such claims at face value if the editor otherwise appears credible, as this one does. or, we could disallow any 'by permission' works which a 3rd party has not independently verified. i prefer the former, and i'm reasonably sure we have safe harbor under the provisions of the DMCA. (we have a registered agent under the DMCA to handle complaints & the infringement would not be "knowing".) otherwise, the whole enterprise would be doomed, as copyvio's get posted all the time on wikipedia, and we certainly can't catch them all. Wolf man 16:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is best just to go with the former, too. Richard Arthur Norton has never been involved in vandalism or anything that blatantly undermines this project. I'm willing to trust him that he's got his copyright permissions all in order, since we truly cannot go hunt down the veracity of the permission ourselves. It does all seem credible, so I propose we allow it.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 17:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If we are keeping articles under copyright with permission, then they need to be tagged with the explict perimision granted. Is permission granted to simply host a protected page (like UN resolutions) or can they be used in derrivative works, etc. I don't exactly know how many poosiblities there are, but we should probably get some templates put together and require that all no-PD texts be tagged explicitly. --BirgitteSB 19:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]