Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2006-05

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 , although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.

Deleted

Author:Cornelius Van Til

This is only a link to an external page about the author, most of whose works are probably still under copyright. - illy 15:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete AllanHainey 15:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Osama bin Laden's January 2006 Audiotape

This was the text of a news organisation's translation, and is thought to be copyrighted as an original translation. There was a Possible copyright violations discussion which eventually stalled without consensus (see "Osama bin Laden's January 2006 Audiotape"). As there is a reasonable doubt that the text is a copyright violation, I propose it be deleted in seven days unless it can be demonstrated otherwise. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 16:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

After death, Afterlife, After time

I can find no mention of a Marcus James Holland on the net. The closest I can come up with is Marcus Holland, which was a psuedonym for Janet Taylor Caldwell, a fiction writer. All of her works would still be under copyright. - illy 19:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete AllanHainey 15:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Author:Demetrius Klitou & The Friends and Foes of Human Rights

Appear to be vanity pages. - illy 15:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete AllanHainey 15:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dover School District ID Letter.pdf

This is a letter sent to parents by a school district. It is probably not published. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 12:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:PD-USGov-Military-Army-USACMH

This template is redundant with {{PD-USGov}}. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 17:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is Dobbstown?

This appears to be a hoax or inside joke. I'm not sure.--BirgitteSB 18:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to w:Dobbstown, this is a Usenet monologue. Delete. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 13:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spoo by J. Michael Straczynski

According to the page, this work is copyrighted by J. Michael Staczynski, but can be copied to any place on the Internet or on a Usenet. However, it says nothing about being able to distribute this in print form. This seems to go against the "freeness" of the Wikimedia Foundation; in fact, it seems that the WMF could not even print this out and distribute it if it were passing out a selection of WS texts. As such, this text should be deleted.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 03:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New world order

Just a page listing other sources relating to the 'New World Order'. AllanHainey 15:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Social sciences

This category is now empty. It previously contained subcategories Geography and Language, respectively recategorised to categories Earth sciences and Culture. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 13:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource:Disambiguation pages

This page is redundant with and less complete than Category:Disambiguation pages. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 18:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource:Incomplete works

This page is redundant with Category:Requests for expansion ({{expand}}) and Category:New texts ({{new text}}). // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 18:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource:Vandalism in progress

This page is redundant with the administrator's noticeboard, which is easily able to deal with the few vandalism reports for the forseeable future. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 18:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce brooker

Not a source text, reads like a WP article --BirgitteSB 18:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Starting a new page

Irrelevant content.--Politicaljunkie 20:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tip of the iceberg

Tagged by Stuartkonen for deletion.--Politicaljunkie 20:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free Culture and all subpages

This book is under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial, incompatible with GFDL. ¬ 03:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Thanks for pointing this out.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 03:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
why is that incompatible with GFDL? and, why would that preclude a publication in wikisource? ThomasV 06:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's incompatible because of the non-commercial clause. There was a big discussion on Foundation-l a short while ago about copyright, and by dictate of the board, Wikisource (really, any project) cannot accept anything that is licensed under any non-commercial license. Everything we host must be allowed to be redistributed for commercial purposes. This puts a damper on what we can host, from what we are used to being able to host, but there is no getting around it.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 06:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, I just read the page containing this. It really looks like a diktat. I think this Foundation is shooting itself in the foot, and that at some point it will needs a reform. In the meantime, you guys could move the Free Culture pages to http://www.wikilivres.info before you delete them... ThomasV 06:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would they take English pages? It looks like you could move the French pages over, but the English ones seem to be a bit out of Wikilivres' scope.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 06:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
come on, of course they would. the scope of this website is to turnaround stupid copyright fundamentalism... ThomasV 06:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
just FYI, I am the main author of the french translation. There is no other copy of it, it is hosted on wikisource only. ThomasV 06:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely no idea how derivative works operate here. If you translate a work under CC A-NC, must you release your translation under that license as well? This would seem to make sense, but I can't find any information about it on CreativeCommons.org. Or can you release it under any license you please? If the former, I still think it might have to be deleted. If the latter, it could easily stay on Wikisource.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 06:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I started to move the English version over to www.wikilivres.info. When this site was created, I thought it was a bad thing, because I do not like the idea of wikisource being split. but now, given the WMF policy, I changed my mind. Pathoschild: Any help moving the pages you have deleted so quickly is welcome. ThomasV 07:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just finished moving all the pages, along with a translated version of {{footer}} and {{header}}. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 08:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bible, English, King James, Documentary Hypothesis, JE source, Elohist source

This seems to be original research, if not I suspect it is copyrighted. AllanHainey 11:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Apocalypse Briefing Documentary

There are a whole group of pages only linked to Wikisource:Collective works under a heading of "*The Apocalypse Briefing Documentary (TABDOC) - (1972-2002)*" which appear to just be a copy of the text from the website which is linked to right under the heading. I can not find any other mention of this document on the web. They appear to have been here since they were copied here from the all language Wikisource. - illy 15:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jokes

Just has a knock-knock joke on it.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's not even funny. AllanHainey 14:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree. It's not that funny, and I doubt that it's been significantly peer reviewed... ;) Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I totally agree with Jude. :) - illy 18:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Author:Patrick Dixon

From his Wikipedia page, it seems all of his works are under copyright.--Politicaljunkie 19:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz, 1960-1969

Appears to've been created an anonymous user in September of 2005, was more recently edited by an anonymous user (which is what brough it to my attention), to change Internet Explorer to w:Firefox. It doesn't appear to be a source text, more like the truncated beginning of a source text, and it hasn't been updated since it's creation. It might fall under CSD A2, but I wasn't certain, so I thought it best to list it here. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete: Looks like it's pretty meaningless content. - illy 18:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Code duello of Deloping

Doesn't seem like a Wikisource article.--Politicaljunkie 23:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki? Seems more like something for wiktionary. - illy 15:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Clayton Hoffman

Bio. --Politicaljunkie 23:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - illy 15:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf of Corryvreckan

More of a Wikipedia article.--Politicaljunkie 23:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki? - illy 15:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catullus 101

Blank page.--Politicaljunkie 23:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In fact this is a candidate for speedy delete. - illy 15:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1881 Census of England

Delete.--Politicaljunkie 23:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - illy 15:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listen

Reads like garbage, no information about source (I'm assuming it would be an extract from a larger work). No copyright information.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 17:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful.

I'm not sure what this is. No source information, orphaned, extremely small page.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 17:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Praise be to Allah, the nurturer of the whole creatures

Same as the item above.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 17:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. The Compassionate, the Merciful.

Same as above two items.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 17:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Reader's Guide to Daode Jing

See the talk page. This is non-published work by a wikipedia contributor. - illy 14:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Child

This is far too general a title to be a redirect to UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Author:Robert Nozick

This is an author with all of his works still under copyright. Seems to be a self-promotion page. - illy 15:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Life and times of srikanta sastri

Reads like a bio.--Politicaljunkie 20:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A small scale study of Wikipedia

Non-published work by the contributor. - illy 14:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long pole theory

Delete --Politicaljunkie 23:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ô Canada & O' Canada

Redundant compared to O Canada.--Politicaljunkie 23:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WDMA final message

Delete.--Politicaljunkie 23:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Utilisateur:Hada de la Luna

Unnecessary content.--Politicaljunkie 23:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trang Chính

Another language, might have to be moved to another Wikisource.--Politicaljunkie 23:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category Vayavinu Bamikra

This category is orphaned from the category system, and only collects a single work. This would be better accomplished using a table of contents and/or indexes. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 19:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Category Human societies

This is a subcategory of Works by subject, and is so broad that it could easily contain all the other categories therein. The works contained should be recategorised to sibling subcategories, and any which can't be recategorised should then be grouped less vaguely. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 20:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Qur'an (English translation)

(also Qu'ran (English translation)/Al-Fatihah, which appears to be an orphaned sub-page from a misspelling)

According to the blurb:

The following Translation of the Qur'an is a work of several contributors over time. Most common citations can be expected from Translations by Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall, Farook-i-Azam Malik, Muhammad Asad and Yusuf Ali.

According to the talk page, the Pickthall translation is not out of copyright, or at least, the issue is quite murky. The Yusuf Ali translation is also still in copyright, as it was published in 1934, and the author died in 1953. According to the history of the page, it appears to be a mish-mash of these different translations, along with people's personal thoughts on what it actually means (see this). Jude (talk,contribs,email) 14:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that we need to look into it. Also, Qur'an (English translation) is vague since there are many of them. I would mention this: Gutenberg has these three translations side by side as in the public domain. I think we pretty much trust their process unless given a reason not to. If we could format up a good version of that and then lock the pages I think it would be a great resource to link to from Wikipedia. Not having to rely on external sources for things like that is nice. Grenavitar 23:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Cyberpunk Manifesto

Published in 1997.--Politicaljunkie 23:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Although the text is in the public domain (according to the source website), it is not published. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 23:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wonder if we might make some sort of exceptions for Manifestos. We have others which are the work of revoluntionary forces. The nature of a Manifesto itself generally precludes it from being noticed by the mainstream outlets we expect to look to for publication. Simply because putting out a Manefesto means you are working against anything the mainstream or the establishment. I wonder what everyone else thinks about Manifestos in general.--BirgitteSB 17:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's the question of notability. Although historical revolutionary forces often release manifestos, so do unimportant videogaming clans. Requiring prior publication is the typical method of determining notability; do you have an alternative in mind to distinguish between important and unimportant manifestos? // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 00:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem isn't historical revolutionary forces, it is current ones. They are the ones that are not properly published. I wish I had a criteria in mind, but I am unsure. I can see a bigger issue in this which is why I broughtt it up. I am not sure what the solution is. Do you have any ideas? --BirgitteSB 20:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleted. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 03:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goodtime Jesus

Non-meaningful content.--Politicaljunkie 23:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Functions

Links to only one page, which is reference data.--Politicaljunkie 23:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sermon on the Mount

  • Delete, duplicates Bible (King James)/Matthew.
  • Keep, It is listed as a speech & its considered as suh in at least 1 compilation of speeches. The fact is the bible is the only source we've got for it so there will be some duplication if we keep it, however I feel it is sufficiently well known in its own right & sufficiently hard to find as a part of the whole if you don't know where to look (like the U.S.A. Bill of rights which we also keep seperately despite being included in the constitution) that we're justified in keeping it as a separate source. AllanHainey 15:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect We should redirect to anchor within the text at Bible (King James). That way it can still hold a place in lists of speeches etc and does not duplicate the text. We previously deleted Hamlet's soliquy for similar reasons. I am definately boderline about this. If people strongly feel we should keep duplicates, I think we should have a general disscusion about it at the Scriptorium as this is a larger issue. What about the "St. Crispin's Day Speech" from Henry V, or "The Lord's Prayer" from Psalms etc.?--BirgitteSB 17:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant. Wikisource is for entire source texts, so a redirect should not be necessary. --Kernigh 23:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikisource collects entire texts; we shouldn't accept notable extracts. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 22:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • While it is true we collect entire source texts there is the question what we mean by entire, or complete - A volume of Hansard is a complete text holding a number of speeches, each complete in their own right. We don't insist that we can't host individual parliamentary speeches because we don't have the whole volume of Hansard. If we look at the Sermon on the Mount as an individual speech (which it is) it is a complete text as nothing has been edited out (that we know of) from the text in the bible. The bible itself is a composite work compiling individual sources & texts made at different times & by different authors so I don't think it is beyond the pale to host (or use redirects) an individual source from it seperately when it is well known in its own right (again I'd cite the precedent of the Bill of Rights & the U.S.A. constitution where we do just that) and indeed was created, and existed for some time, seperately from the bible. AllanHainey 12:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleted. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 03:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Java Research License

Isn't this beyond scope and a copyright violation? - illy 15:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Adolf Hitler

This category is orphaned, and redundant with the Author pages unless we decide to categorise works by author. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 23:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Whole Earth Catalog

This looks like it's left over text after the individual catalogs were deleted for copyright violations. - illy 17:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Crown Copyright

As we no longer accept CC documents, there's no reason to keep the license template.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 04:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource:Bad transfers

This page apparently listed pages that did not transfer correctly from the multilingual Wikisource after the split; all the pages currently listed have since been corrected. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 18:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource:Administrator's how-to guide

This contains quite a bit of information that should be merged with m:Help:Administration. However, since the information contained applies to the entire Foundation, it should be on the Meta-Wiki instead. See also "Mirrored metaWiki help pages" (February 2006 archives), a similar proposal which resulted in deletion. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The meta page is crap and doesn't explain how to do any of the actions. This was based of Wikipedia's page, but modified to fit Wikisource's mission. I don't see this as a help page, as it applies to a very limited group of users, nor do I see it as a duplicate of a Meta page. The page in question outlines many procedures that administrators might not know about or how to do (such as merging histories or reverting edits while making them not appear on the Recent changes). I think for new administrators (and even older ones) they should be directed to read this page once they receive admin rights.

Wikisource:Announcements

This page does not seem to have been used since creation (it currently contains placeholder text). Announcements are usually posted on the Scriptorium, where they have the greatest visibility. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 01:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource:Bug reports

This page was created and used once; most likely no developer has or will ever see it. Users should take note of m:MediaWiki feature request and bug report discussion when they wish to note a bug. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 06:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Food for Oil

Was listed in the cleanup category. I'm not sure what could be added to this, and it doesn't seem to fit the scope of Wikisource.--Shanel 04:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I remember this. It was created by a highly erratic IP address. Delete. The contributor abandoned the page and it's garbage.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource:Babel

No content. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 23:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource:Featured page nomination

This is an older process for featured texts that never took off. A new proposal will soon be drafted at Wikisource:Featured texts that is very little like this one. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 00:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of White House 'Enemies' and Memo Submitted by Dean to the Ervin Committee

This is a mismash taken from Facts on File. - illy 20:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem with this one? I don't know what the mismatch is but if this is the real 'Nixon enemies list' (& it looks like it) we should Keep. AllanHainey 12:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mishmash, not mismatch :-). Delete. Facts on File copyright their works. This is just a list and is claimed as fair use. Furthermore, it's only an excerpt.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hacking Begins...

It is open for distribution, but I'm not sure if it's appropriate material. --Politicaljunkie 23:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

چامه

I'm not sure exactly what this is.--Politicaljunkie 23:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:W

Not in use.--Politicaljunkie 22:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tampa

Not in use.--Politicaljunkie 22:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military-industrial complex speech

Duplication of Eisenhower's farewell address --Pmsyyz 04:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Military Industrial Speech isn't complete either compared to the farewell speech. We should delete and redirect MIS to the farewell address. AllanHainey 09:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with Allan. illy 15:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted & redirect added - AllanHainey 11:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Redirects

Texts from the Bahá'í Reference Library

The following texts all seem to be taken from the Bahá'í Reference Library, which releases its content under a noncommercial license.

// [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 21:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kitáb-i-Aqdas definately is copyright. The site is really copyrighting the compalation on their servers. The others are close to being PD. Meaning I researched it and found leads they might be but no confirmation. Translation is the issue. I think it is up to the uploader to prove to us they are PD, since I cannot find out easily. --BirgitteSB 22:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I could have sworn Bahai stuff came up not too long ago, and according to the Terms of Use (at that time) it was permissible to use them. But, according to the current TOU we are no longer permitted to use these files as they do not fall under the notion of free content.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki:Comments, Sources, & Revision History

Not sure why this was sent here. It seems to be beyond our scope. - illy 16:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C1.V5.

Only 1 user (anonymous) has ever contributed and the bulk isn't in English.--Politicaljunkie 21:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Author:Alfred Austin

Irrelevant content.--Politicaljunkie 21:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Brown’s Body

Redundant compared to John Brown's Body.--Politicaljunkie 21:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't see the difference betweent he 2 titles but noe see it's the type of apostrophe used. Delete - AllanHainey 11:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Genius Diwan of the Manasir

This is a document which according to this website [1] is actually published only here and maybe on Wikipedia.

"The author and photographer David Haberlah decided to publish the majority of his research on Wikipedia and Wikisource."

This would appear to violate our inclusion criteria. - illy 20:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bhagavad Gita, EA 5

Irrelevant content.--Politicaljunkie 22:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bush document

Irrelevant content.--Politicaljunkie 20:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ORIENTAL POWDER MILLS

Irrelevant content.-Politicaljunkie 20:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation

Even if there was substance, it would be Wikiquote material.--Politicaljunkie 20:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Floor Statement of Senator Barack on the Confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito

Unneeded redirect after a page move.--Politicaljunkie 20:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commencement Address at Syracus University, College of Law

Unneeded redirect after a page move.--Politicaljunkie 21:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winesburg, Ohio

Irrelevant content.--Politicaljunkie 22:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Speediy Deleted Non-meaningful content. --BirgitteSB 22:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University

Encyclopedia article. Have notified contributor to put it on wikipedia. Delete. AllanHainey 09:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Speediy Deleted It is an exaact copy of the Wikpedia article. --BirgitteSB 22:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brahma kumaris world spiritual organisation

As above, same content different title. Delete AllanHainey 09:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Speediy Deleted It is an exact copy of the Wikpedia article. --BirgitteSB 22:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Lord Chamberlain

Delete for now, as it's irrelevant content.--Politicaljunkie 21:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Speediy Deleted It was Nonsense. --BirgitteSB 22:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hacker's Manifesto

Wikisource should not have external links as the sole content on a page.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 01:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. The page violated the Copyright policy's clause against indirect copyright violation ("Linking to copyrighted works"), and was clearly beyond the inclusion guidelines. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 02:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept

Wikisource:Scan parties

This page seems to have been carried over in the move from the multilingual Wikisource. It doesn't seem to be used systematically, and cannot realistically include even a fraction of the number of works that become public domain every year. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 20:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't exactly just to list works whose copyrights expire each year, but to get a lot of people involved in adding one particular author's works to Wikisource (that way, where we usually have only a very brief selection of an author's works, we'd have a wide range to offer). But it sadly never got off the ground, so delete.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 20:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why delete? It may not have taken off the ground, but it may in the future if the page is not deleted. So, keep. On the French WS, scanning books for WS has just started recently. Yann 19:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AllanHainey 11:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Scanning is no big deal, just needs practice and time :) Apwoolrich 17:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that scaninng's no big deal (it's a fantastic idea), it's just that no one's used the page before. The idea behind the scan parties was never implemented on even the multi-WS, and it was just ported over here because it was in English. I'm not opposed to having this, but if we do keep it, we should change it's purpose a bit. Instead of trying to solely advertising and getting people to add multitudes of one person's work, we should add to it also a list of books that people can OCR. I've got a small database of books of Google Books that I want to scan at some point (but lack of good OCR software keeps me from doing it), that I can add to the page. We might have to even change the name of the page to something other than "scan parties," too.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 01:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Digitising texts and images for Wikisource Apwoolrich 17:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I agree we should change the name, it is useful to have a list of people whose works will be soon entering the public domain.

United States Bill of Rights

Is it really necessary for the Bill of Rights to have its own page, seeing as it is the first ten Amendment to the Constitution?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 17:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Bill of Rights is technically listed as a seperate document, though it is a list of additions to the Constitution. Many others, like Wikipedians consider it a seperate document.

Keep I think this is a unique document. Perhaps this page can be reworked like The Gettysburg Address with the different versions that were put out by various states at the time as well as the final version. --BirgitteSB 23:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most sites have pages for the Bill of Rights separate from the rest of the Amendments and Constitution. I still think it's pointless to reproduce the content twice, but I guess allowing this to have its own page would allow for better inter-sister-project linking.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 00:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hitler - My Political Testament

This discussion is moved from Possible copyright violations. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 15:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Translation may not be PD, this version only shows up 11 times on google, so i suspect it may not be, for example, a government translation ... but i'm not sure. Wolf man 03:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This work was published by the U. S. Government Printing Office. Whether that means that the translation was also done by the government, I do not know. Google is very little help in determining the who translated this, so I have no idea how to check the translation's copyright status or not.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kept. I've determined the source as United States, Office of United States Chief of Counsel for Prosecution of Axis Criminality, Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, 8 volumes and 2 supplementary volumes (Government Printing Office, Washington, 1946-1948), VI, 259-263, Document number 3569-PS. I've tagged it accordingly and noted the source. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 22:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion: This Land is Your Land

This was deleted last month as it was thought to be a copyright violation Wikisource:Possible copyright violations/Archives/2006/04#This Land is Your Land. At the time I had asked on the wikipedia talk page about its status & have just got the following reply: "The aftermath of the JibJab copyright fiasco was the discovery that the tune was never under copyright as that had been taken from the Carter Family[[2]] and the lyrics copyright from 1945 had never been renwed [[3]]. In addition Guthrie at on time appended a copyright notice to the song that read: "This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright # 154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin’ it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don’t give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that’s all we wanted to do." ~~Brother William 2nd May 2006 23:03(UTC)". The link given states that "This Land is Your Land Copyright Expired

Music publisher Ludlow Music agreed to allow JibJab Media to distribute its internet film with animated Bush and Kerry characters, "This Land," based on the tune "This Land is your Land," without interference. It adds: "Attorneys for JibJab also said they have found evidence that the copyright on Guthrie's song expired in 1973, meaning that anyone can use it for free." " so it looks like this isn't a copyright violation after all & it can be undeleted. AllanHainey 10:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restored and appropriately tagged. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 14:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Wikisource:Administrator

This seems to be an unneeded redirect from a page move. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The page is just a nice redirect for the cases where people type "administrator" instead of "administrators." I believe on some projects, the singular is used, and on others the plural (this is digging back into some fuzzy memories, though, so I might be wrong).—Zhaladshar (Talk) 17:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Please do not be too eager to delete redirects that you think as "unneeded". w:Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion at English Wikipedia says, "We do not delete redirects simply because they do not have any incoming links."--Jusjih 11:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pointless redirects should be deleted because they clutter the namespace, reduce the useability of the Prefix index, and increase the time it takes a bot to scan Wikisource. Having no incoming links is not a deletion reason, but it's often a good indication that the redirect is pointless. On the other hand, I see no reason not to keep a redirect if there is a reason it exists. Speedy kept (as nominator), since there does seem to be a reason in this case. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 13:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dido and Aeneas

Redundant compared to Dido And Aenaes.--Politicaljunkie 21:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus

Wikisource:Anonymous texts

The purpose of this page would be best served by a category. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 01:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sefer Yeshua, Iggeret Ya`aqov, Torat ha-Shlichim

See [4] for information regarding this work on the multi-WS copyvio page. Apparently this work can only be on WS if we keep people from being able to edit it. I wonder if this goes against WMF or WS copyright policy. Surely we can protect the page, but we can't keep people from downloading/printing it and changing it to how they see fit. And I wonder if the author of this work would object to anybody making money off of his hard work...—Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. I'm rather ambivalent in the case of non-derivative licenses. There are legal implications if we allow these on a wide scale, as someone will inevitably break the terms of the licenses at some point. On the other hand, they're entirely within the scope of the project and would be useful to host. A relevant discussion occured on the Foundation mailing list; see the thread "RfC: A Free Content and Expression Definition", in particular my post at May 4 in the spin-off thread "A Wikisource Definition" concerning non-derivative terms on Wikisource. This may be something we should decided on the Scriptorium. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 19:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've got no problem hosting these documents. I just wanted to make sure that we actually can host them. ND licenses are just wishful thinking in my book, because the moment a work under this license is made available to people, they have the opportunity to take it and change it however they see fit. If we need to move this to the Scriptorium then that's fine, I just wanted to make sure before I went ahead and added the locked template.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • These works are already protected. I protected them some time ago in response to a request on the protection request page. I don't see a problem with keeping them as we're preventing people from modifying this version. The author presumably knew what wikisource was when he gave his permission so I say Keep. AllanHainey 12:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm only bringing this up to get a consensus. I can see a potential problem where the man who holds the copyright will get a little miffed when he sees people using his works, making money off of them, and not giving him a cent for it. This is what is entailed when you submit works to WS. In light of this and what I mentioned above, I want to get a consensus to keep it.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2006-05&oldid=3122114"