Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2009-02

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 February 2009, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.


Message to Scientology[edit]

The following discussion is closed.
1) Does not meet our publication standards, while a speech Obama makes on Youtube may meet notability and inclusion standards, a bunch of teenagers making fun of a sub-culture in a sub-culture of their own, on their webcam definitely does not meet our standards for "previosly published', any more than "I've published my poetry through Geocities".

2) This is a slowly-creeping disease infiltrating WMF, last year Wikinews was so overrun by the "omg, let's make front-page articles about what a douchebag Tom Cruise is, and how stupid Scientology is" it was practically useless as a news source - as much as a quarter of all news stories were specifically about "New group of internet vigilantes issue warning to Scientology", "Wikinews special report: Is Scientology a destructive cult?". I'd caution our administrators to keep an eye out for similar issues cropping up at WS in the future. At WN for example, the front page was eventually inundated with examples such as n:Alleged 'rights group' tries to have 4,000 anti-Scientology videos removed from YouTube, n:Anti-Scientology protest material removed from YouTube following threats of legal action, n:Teen hacker admits to attack on, n:Alleged 'rights group' involved with removal of anti-Scientology videos from YouTube doesn't exist; says EFF, n:Church of Scientology falsely accuses internet group 'Anonymous' of 2007 school shooting and n:Church of Scientology in France accused of fraud; ordered to stand trial...all in a one-month period.

Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: e. e. cummings‎'. 17:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Many of the Wikinews articles you cite above, in fact most of them, were not written by myself, but by another user. I take issue with this attempt by Sherurcij (talkcontribs) to shift the focus of this discussion to me personally and my actions on another project where I am an administrator and member of the Arbitration Committee, as opposed to a discussion of the merits of keeping this particular document. Cirt (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Extremely notable piece of history and internet culture, has been covered in many secondary news sources. The document has been released as public domain by the creator, and this can be verified in OTRS. The video itself has been directly cited and quoted from and discussed in numerous secondary sources, including: St. Petersburg Times, Auckland, Heise Newsticker, Edmonton Sun, Xinhua News Agency, The Emory Wheel, United Press International, APC Magazine, Macquarie National News, Warren Ellis, Newsweek, The Guardian, Radar Online, The Boston Phoenix, Tuscon Weekly, Morning Edition. Cirt (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec) Quite a strange nomination. I had originally written the following: Volunteers upload material that interests them. One of the things that sustains the volunteer base and draws new visitors is when the site becomes a good resource for some topic or other. Ragtime music has been my pet project; a similar rationale might nominate public domain music for deletion for being excessively US-centric. The solution is to seek more material from a broader range, not halt the progress in an area that's improving. Edit conflicted to find the nomination expanded to include several links to Wikinews, a sister project where I am also an administrator, and tenuous allegations added against one of the Wikinews arbitration committee members. Do have a look at the histories of those articles; on most of them Cirt's contribution was minor copyediting, pre-publication review, and other housekeeping chores. Suggest revising or withdrawing the nomination. Durova (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
The nomination is not about being US-centric, it's about maintaining our policy requiring sufficient notability and/or prior publication. An internet meme on Youtube has neither. It would be like if I wrote a blog post about why w:Hillary Clinton is a bitch, and then re-published it on WS stating that it was originally published on Wordpress or something. The user has contributed a number of federal court documents on Scientology - sure he's pushing an agenda, but I don't mind the court documents because they're notable. A Youtube video is not. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: e. e. cummings‎'. 18:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Suggest withdrawing those distracting side issues then. And perhaps refactoring the bit about Mrs. Clinton to something more genteel. I'm on the fence regarding notability. The average blogger hasn't received the press coverage that Anonymous has. Arguably, a better analogy would be the Hacker Manifesto. Am open to discussion on that point. Let's keep cool and discuss the relevant merits. Durova (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Tweaked the wording a bit, though I stand by my original assertion, but focused it a bit more on the specific document in question. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: e. e. cummings‎'. 18:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Would have preferred a more extensive tweak. A dry 'Just the facts, Ma'am' is often best. Time to relax with some tea and see how other volunteers weigh in. Best wishes. Durova (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • (outdenting) Keep per the MSNBC republication of the entire text. Would accept any other public domain text a major and respected news source printed in full. Comparison to the Unabomber manifesto is illuminating: it's certainly not an endorsement of either declaration to host both here. It seldom happens that recent material gets released under suitable license to carry here. Perhaps by republishing what we can, Wikisource will encourage wider use of free licenses. If the Church of Scientology chooses to place their publications under free license, would be glad to host those too. Durova (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Whether or not the Wikinews Arbcom has supported retaining this kind of yellow journalism is entirely their concern, not ours. As much as I would like to see greater participation on this project, there are ethical factors that limit what I would support to accomplish that end. I am also assuming that any issues relating to copyright are not a factor in this discussion.
Injecting ourselves into either side of a contemporary controversy is not what we are about. As much as I agree with hosting freely licensed material in addition to Public Domain material, other standards need to be considered when we are dealing with material that has not withstood the test of time. Perhaps the proferred material can wait until Scientology and its detractors have solved their differences. At hat time we can be assured that we are dealing strictly with historical material. Eclecticology (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Whatever we decide we will be coming down on one side of the debate, and in a sense entering into the controversy. I therefore believe our decision must be based on the importance of this text, with publication in secondary sources being a reasonable measure. Your point about withstanding the test of time is certainly a good one. Are there enough secondary source to demonstrate that this is an "Extremely notable piece of history and internet culture"? Suicidalhamster (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Recent collaborations of the week were Author:John McCain and Author:Barack Obama. How is that less injecting ourselves into a contemporary controversy? Are we going to provide similar rules for Christianity, that all texts about (or merely critical of?) are held until Christians and their detractors have solved their differences? It's been published in Newsweek and other major media; that's enough to put it in our scope, just like the speeches of McCain and Obama. If Scientology ever wants to release something into the public domain that has similar mainstream bona fides, I see no reason we shouldn't post that too.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    There already exists a well-established mechanism for resolving the differences between McCain and Obama. There are aspects of contemporary Christianity that should be avoided, such as inter-faith squabbling over abortion. We can probably get away with documented 19th century allegations that Catholic nunneries existed for the carnal pleasures of priests, but we wouldn't want to go there for any modern allegations of the sort. It comes down to having the wisdom and maturity to recognize that there are some topics will attract controversy just by being there. Eclecticology (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
    I don't think whether or not there's a mechanism for resolving the differences matters. We shouldn't be a refuge of radical texts that no one in the real even finds worthy to voice disapproval of, but that doesn't mean we should shy away from storing modern documents on issues of the day, particularly those that receive note in the widestream press. If Christianity Today started releasing its articles as free content, should we really go through the text before uploading and rip out everything but bland homilies? Should we avoid what we can publish of the Pope and Jerry Falwell and the Ayatollah Khomeneni on abortion, because it's controversial?--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
    If Christianity Today started releasing its articles like that it would essentially mean allowing everything there. I don't see any kind of responsible editorial policy coming from You Tube. Eclecticology (talk) 08:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
    I don't understand your response. Two questions: if Christianity Today were released as free content, would support adding it in full to Wikisource? If yes, then how is adding material that will frequently take stands on very controversial material, including the planned eradication of not only Scientology but every non-Christian religion, avoiding contemporary controversy?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, I see this as similar to Statute Of The Primeiro Comando da Capital, Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith or Industrial Society and Its Future. I do not consider Wikinews to be a reputable news venue (yet), so I wouldnt consider "for WikiNews" as a reason to keep, however this text has been reported in reputable news venues. It is a source! We want it, and we want it now! In regards to notability, while it is not of any consequence here, this text already appears to be more notable than many of the obscure texts that we have here. Let someone propose it for deletion for in five years if they believe it had no lasting value. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
The Unabomber's Manifesto is notable because it's the writing of a undoubtedly notable person -- similar to how a letter written by Adolf Hitler to his niece may be a beautiful addition - but one written by Sherurcij to his niece would not be. If this letter had been sent to the Church of Scientology two hours before it was bombed, or led to the Church of Scientology killing a protestor - it might merit inclusion on the basis of notability. But the Youtube ranting of hackers and 4Chan forum members isn't really notable. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: e. e. cummings‎'. 23:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
No, homework the Unabomber did in college is not valuable to us. The Unabomber's Manifesto is valuable specifically because it achieved note and interest. I don't think we should institute a notability standard, but if it we do, it needs to be objective--and I think published by multiple mainstream publishers passes it with flying colors.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. (I can't believe we're actually squabbling about whether or not we should include 4chan's latest attention-whoring.) Seeing as Wikisource does not really have notability standards, peer reviewed publication is our main criterion for inclusion. Being published in paper-based or electronic news articles should not deem it worthy of inclusion here, unless we put it in the context of the entire news article. In short, I agree with Sherurcij (who'd a thought? :P )--a transcript of an internet video with no oversight as to the content of the video should not be allowed here.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 23:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    • (I cant believe you are using Anonymous and 4chan interchangably) Our inclusion policy only requires peer review for analytical and artistic works; if we required it for all texts, the current featured text would need to be deleted (see WS:PD(2008-10)#Author:George Thomas Coker), collections like {{911}}, and 1000s of others. Whether you like it or not, Anonymous is notable, and it is a fool who stands in their cross-hairs. For this reason, this statement has been recognised as a notable document by multiple notable hardcopy newspapers and (glossy) magazines, as Cirt and Durova have demonstrated above. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
      • My objection to the Coker material was merely that it was maudlin. The 911 material is clearly historical in nature, and is not here to push somebody's Point of View. It seems that it was not that long ago the community also opposed using Author:Anonymous as a proper page. Applying that to anonymous groups would strike me as a proper extension of that position. Limiting the term to scientologists is a perversion. Eclecticology (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Wrt the anomymous groups, I dont follow you. The decision to delete the "Anonymous" author page was because it doesnt tell the person anything; it isnt a distinct person or group. Are you objecting to having this page: Portal:Anonymous (group) ? That author page has a strict inclusion criteria: works claimed or proved to be authored by the group called "Anonymous"; a number of real people in this group are known, as they have appeared in U.S. courts. We also have a few other Author pages that are similar in nature, so I've created a category so we can get a better picture of what we have: Category:Anonymous authors
          John Vandenberg (chat) 02:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
          Portal:Anonymous (group) is misleading. If they are known through the the courts, why not just add their names? Has Anonymous Group been recognized as a legal entity in any jurisdiction? Eclecticology (talk) 08:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
          • I doubt it has been incorporated anywhere; that would defeat the purpose. However, in this press release, the USDOJ doesnt shy away from recognising them under that name. I've just now added Author:CrimethInc. to this class of anonymous authors. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
            • Then we should be able to put the author as "Dmitriy Guzner and others." If the Anonymous Group is not incorporated, it has no corporate legal authority to license the material since it cannot own it. Eclecticology (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Peer reviewed publication is a lousy standard; it's only applicable to a very narrow range of work, and accepts a bunch of material with really marginal interest (Cold Fusion Hypothesis, anyone?) while excluding any of these political speeches posted here in such quantity or any work of literary significance. If we are to exclude attention-whoring, I think we should do so in a fair and balanced way, not excluding one group because we don't like them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
      The last big community discussion about this was WS:S(2007-09)#Change inclusion policy and a followup at WS:S(2007-10)#Upshot of Change inclusion policy ?. --John Vandenberg (chat) 02:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per User:BirgitteSB/Piecemeal challenges It doesn't matter how "notable" this is, it does not meet our inclusion criteria. No real publisher has put their reputation behind this by publishing this. The fact that news reports have included the message surrounded by commentary is not the same thing. We don't allow excerpts of published works. I am afraid that this community is losing the sense how and why the criteria were hammered out in the first place. I personally have no interest in making subjective judgments on whether a text is acceptable. And because I have never seen any workable non-subjective criteria for "notability", I am not interested in that being a reason to accept a text. I don't care what this text is about, or what view on that subject this text takes, all I care is that some publisher with editorial review took it on themselves (and their legal department) to publish the text as we host it. I don't know that there is a particular reason the text in question would not published. It could simply be a matter of time before this meets our criteria. But right now it does not.--BirgitteSB 03:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
    I wholeheartedly agree with User:BirgitteSB/Piecemeal challenges, however I dont follow how you then use it to endorse deletion, which validates the use of WS:PD to debate deleting this work in isolation of others which are also similar borderline cases, as I have provided above. This was published (nailed to the church door) - it is a manifesto - it has been redistributed widely. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Luther's Theses were published well before 1923, and that's a very important distinction there. Birgitte raises a great point. But this page is not a policy page in itself it is an operations page for applying policy. It should still be used after a policy exists, but the debate should be much shorter. I also agree with her that we should alter our criteria to exclude material that would make us a part of a contemporary controversy. Also, all there is at the You Tube site is a video without text. If we were to keep this it would be more in line with our sourcing policies to upload a copy of the video to Commons. Eclecticology (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
      • In the process of doing that, just working on the video conversion to the proper format for Wikimedia Commons. Cirt (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Update: There is now a copy of the video at commons, added as well embedded into the Message to Scientology page. Cirt (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't agree with your analysis; "published" is the rule, not "published exactly as we host it without removing the extraneous material". Obama's speeches were surrounded by commentary. Very little of the modern political material that fills Wikisource has ever been published as standalone texts. I suspect also that it would be hard to find a copy of Magna Carta or the Gettysburg Address published without commentary; note that even Wikisource adds some context. This document has been reprinted in whole by publishers and their legal departments, which satisfies the requirements.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagree that this is even a borderline case. This clearly falls in the arena of "self-published". Days of War, Nights of Love is a borderline case, as we can list their publisher and question whether they count as editorial review or are just a vanity press. There is no doubt in this case that it is self-published. We decided that we do not want to be accepting self-published texts here for good reasons.--BirgitteSB 14:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • It was first self-published, but it was later published by MSNBC, among others, making that self-publishing moot.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Come up with and objective criteria to insert into WS:WWI that would cover this work and propose the change at WS:S and I will consider it. But I am not going to agree to change the meaning of publisher for one work. The whole point of the criteria of something being published is that publishers have editorial controls over the content. Clearly a news site illustrating their own story with the video which made news is not a exerting editorial control over the video. They do not list themselves as a publisher like "Crimethinc Free Press" does. These organizations would never claim to be a publisher of that video. Reporting does equal publishing. Why would we include every self-published video put on You-tube which was aired on CNN as the odd news of the day? Are we suddenly supposed to open the project to the Star Wars Kid and all the other self-published crap that would meet no publisher's standards because it made the news one day? I do realize that there is some questionable stuff the gets published which we host and some great stuff that is self-published and we do not host. But overall requiring publication under editorial controls is a good line to follow, in fact it is the best criteria for inclusion proposed thus far. If you have a better idea, I am more than happy to hear it. But I am not interested in twisting our policy beyond usefulness to allow one text that you happen to like inside. I am sorry that a work you are attached to falls on the wrong side of the inclusion criteria, but try to see the big picture of how we are trying to outline the boundaries of a collection here. Try to understand that lines must be drawn where they only work most of the time, because nothing is perfect.-BirgitteSB 17:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  • If works on Youtube can't be documentary sources, what part of WS:WWI justifies posting those Obama speeches?--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Based on the hit count on the video, major media coverage, and significant street protests, it's notable. Even if WN is overrun with Scientology stuff. We keep stuff that's notable; that's policy, IIRC. unsigned comment by (talk) .
    There is no such notability policy, and I would certainly resist being intimidated by street protests. Eclecticology (talk) 01:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I do not see anything in Wikisource's codified policies that excludes this transcript, so it should be kept. Shii (talk) 14:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Closing I had seriously considered closing this discussion but as it would be my first and this is clearly controversial I will list what would be closing rationale and let someone else close it. Attempting to overlook all the religious and personal views in the debate (of which there are many) and looking only to WS:WWI and existing non-controversial included content. Several notable members of the community have strikingly different views, I respect all of your positions and opinions.
  • Defining what is included; Meets two of four inclusion policy 2 - Documentary sources & 4 -Free content
  • Adding value to source texts; While every work starts out as a new and original work, it becomes source material when published. This work has been published and republished multiple times, multimedia data has been included to "greatly improve the quality and presentation"
  • Acknowledging precedent exclusions, the work does not fall into any of the listed categories, No longer an original work as it has been republished, and John spoke to "Anonymous (group)". Looking at included works we do see a parallel, Obama's speeches one hand speak to excepting the format of the work in WS, while Proofread of the Month work The Pilgrim Cookbook speaks to excepting work that was originally self published, and of questionable notability.
  • The release of copyright is mostly unquestioned, any discussion on that topic would be appropriate for WS:COPYVIO not here, and there is no other argument rooted in existing policy to delete this work. If such a policy should exist is the topic for other conversations. Had I closed this discussion I would have closed it as keep, per the above. Jeepday (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm not going to comment either way on this debate, but I'd like to note that this issue brings to attention a hole in policy - that of pure notability. Perhaps such a policy was not required here in the past, but maybe we should look at and have a review of whether it is applicable to this wiki. Should texts have to meet a certain notability criteria to be included, and how will we define this? Is our bare "documentary source" inclusion policy not complete in that the relative importance and notability of these documentary sources is not prescribed or regulated? Because, from where I'm standing, this could be a policy we should look at implementing in some shape or form; I think some of the arguments and evidence presented in this debate are prime testimony to this, and I think the text itself holds a light up to the fact that WS:NOT does not actually indicate limitations on the overall significance or noteworthiness of the texts we're uploading here. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
    • This sounds like one of those points that would be best considered in the discussion that you started in Scriptorium. Eclecticology (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete - I don't consider that uploads to youtube is, or should be, considered as meeting our requirement for previous publication. It is in any event what I'd consider an original contribution (albiet created on youtube rather than wikisource) and a blatant self-publication work which we've long said we don't want. AllanHainey (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment; of course uploads to YouTube don't meet our requirements for previous publication; the argument is about the news sources that printed it in part and in whole.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think that just because its been picked up by news sites after being on youtube that makes it any more notable or relevant - any more than the youtube kids on Salvia videos that are replayed on the news. If the work had appeared on a news source initially - been sent to BBC, NBC, etc & they'd aired it then it could well be justified to host it but I'd say thats different from it just being picked up by them subsequent to it appearing on youtube. AllanHainey (talk) 14:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Suggested comment change; argument, discussion. Jeepday (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

No consensus I have been away awhile and am surprised to see this still open. I doesn't look like we are going to reach consensus at this time as to whether or not this work qualifies as "previously published" for inclusion. So I am officially closing the disscusion. There is no deadline here and we will have plenty of oppurtunity to work out how we wish to apply the limits of this aspect of policy in the future.--BirgitteSB 19:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The Sword of Welleran and Other Stories reappearance[edit]

The following discussion is closed: keep published in 1908, {{PD-1923}} applies Jeepday (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
In patrolling, I have come across this baby
  • The Sword of Welleran and Other Stories (diff; hist) . . (+181,542) . . (Talk) (restoring deleted book)

I know not the background, I do know that it should be something that should be investigated. -- billinghurst (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep, written in 1908, taken from Project Gutenberg, very clearly public domain. Exactly as I told Eclect a week ago - as you two come to mirror each other in strange and disturbing ways that want me to suggest a w:matchmaker, take the thirty seconds to do research yourself before proposing something for deletion. If thirty seconds can't turn up an answer, then take thirty seconds to list it for deletion instead. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Nikola Tesla‎. 03:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Umm, before you start character assassination, nit-picking or general rabble-rousing. Please draw a breath. There is no ideal place to address the question from patrolling, or if there is, then I am unaware of it. I brought it here as I could find no specific reference to the book, but was concerned that it was talking about RESTORATION OF PREVIOUSLY DELETED, and I knew not the background (all stated, possibly not perfectly). So I brought it to the experts. -- billinghurst (talk) 05:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Follow-up. I took the effort to patrol, the item had not been ticked off, and I tried to appropriately refer. So rather than pick on people, try some leadership rather than start with condemnation. That sort of attitude sends people away. I will go do some project work and you can do the patrol. Enjoy. Regards. -- billinghurst (talk) 05:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment There is no verification or notes information on the page. If this is indeed from Project Gutenberg or wherever it is from, that should be given in enough detail in notes on the page and talk page so that this can be verified by others later against what is presented. At present all that is stated is "1908". Cirt (talk) 04:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The question and nomination was a valid one, even if this item is likely to be kept in due course. While it may be nice to do a little research about a page like this there is no obligation to do this. An honest nomination does not warrant rude imputations of conspiracy. There is nothing strange about the nomination, and if Sherurcij chooses to feel disturbed by this that's just too goddamn bad. Eclecticology (talk) 08:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to just have a bot nominate works, then? We could have it nominate random books, or just the entire collection at once. I mean, it takes all of thirty seconds for me to grab "Behold now the battlements, the old battlements." from the text and find that Google Books says it comes from a work published in 1908 with their copy acquired in 1918 by Harvard. Or go to the Wikipedia page on the book, [e:The Sword of Welleran and Other Stories] or the author. What's next, putting Huckleberry Finn here?--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with your suggestion that a bot be used for nominations. What criteria would your bot follow? Unlike the obscure work nominated here, Huckleberry Finn is a well known pillar of American literature. The present work was not nominated as a copyvio; we have a separate page for that. The basis was that this was a previously deleted text, and for some people here that qualifies it for speedy deletion. Merely Googling and finding out that the work was first published in 1908 may satisfy our copyright requirements, but it will not satisfy our sourcing requirements. It does not reference a specific edition that can serve as a basis for proofreading our text. I don't go so far as supporting a requirement that all our contents be supported by scanned pages, but I do believe that we should be able to trace our version to its printed origins. The variations between editions of the same work can be profound. Eclecticology (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
To have criteria implies research. Why should the bot have to research anything? This isn't a particularly obscure book; as I pointed out, it has a Wikipedia page. As far as I know, Wikisource doesn't actively delete books that don't reference a specific edition, and Proposed Deletions isn't Cleanup Needed. Again, for all the time that was spent here, something could have been done to the book.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: It would seem that this is NOT a text that has been deleted by the WS project, and it is not copyright. So the simple and polite response is that there are no specific issue with the text, and KEEP
  • Comment: I did not propose the book for deletion, I brought it to the attention that it had been undeleted, using their terminology. The heading text at the top clearly states that this is the page where undelete is discussed. There was no point in researching something that looked like local issue, not about copyright. The extraordinary comment and supposition is unhelpful. The attitude? Well that is something that each of you can reflect upon. It is not what I expected and I will reflect upon that. :-/ -- billinghurst (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Generally speaking, listing something on Proposed Deletions presupposes you are proposing it be deleted. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Nostradamus‎. 01:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
There are a series of measures for proposing deletions, and I only undertook one, and I surely did preface it with the background to what I was doing, and what I saw, so that doesn't fall under generally speaking criteria. As this page has more purposes than generally speaking, it was not wrong in what I did, though maybe it was not the ideal place for that discussion. To this point in time neither you, nor anyone else, has identified a better place for raising the subject matter, so I am no better enlightened or guided. Otherwise it falls outside of generally speaking and it was okay to raise the matter here. I await your profound wisdom on this matter as an experienced and knowledgeable Wikisourcian that you are. Regards. -- billinghurst (talk) 03:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
While I can agree that "generally speaking" this page is to propose deletion, I see nothing offensive in the present proposal. Some would even say that by a strict reading of the rules this one is a candidate for speedy deletion since it was previously deleted. What I find unacceptable is the tendency of some to attach personal blame to a mere proposal; there's a big difference between proposals and actual deletions. If nobody considered this obscure text worth the effort of fixing it himself, then deletion would be a perfectly valid outcome for this discussion. Eclecticology (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
No, we do not delete public access to free knowledge simply to punish inactive or lazy WS editors. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Nostradamus‎. 21:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
No-one has proposed punishing anybody. Eclecticology (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm taking this to the Scriptorium, since it's not really relevant to this deletion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Keep, no consensus for delete Jeepday (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
An obtrusive template such as this is not needed. Multiple users have voiced opposition to it, saying that instead simply usage of a category such as placing pages into the category Category:Authors with unidentified initials would be sufficient. I agree wholeheartedly with this comment from Eclecticology (talkcontribs): I agree that the obtrusive (rather than obstructive) notice is not needed at all. A category is more than enough, and this comment from Anonymous Dissident (talkcontribs): My view: delete the template; create a category. Thank you for considering this template for deletion. Cirt (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep, it's a clean-up template for authorpages that informs new and anonymous users how they can help us, the exact same as {{Populate}}, {{OCR-errors}} or {{nolicense}}. Cirt has campaigned for this to be deleted in the past, on various platforms, and while I admit I don't understand his hatred of the template - it's starting to get annoying. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Bahá'u'lláh. 03:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Your annoyance is of no relevance, nor are your allegations of campaigns on other sites. I don't believe it has been raised on this page before for specific action. Stick to the issue. Eclecticology (talk) 08:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The issue is that "I want this deleted" has been raised before, and it shouldn't just keep being raised until somebody whines enough to get their way.
Delete There is no evidence that putting this ugly box on an author page operates to find people to do this work. The category alone could be more effective if it is properly linked. The same could be said of the other make work boxes. Eclecticology (talk) 08:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I've seen about 75 pages moved to their proper format while the "obtrusive" template is placed on them in its first two weeks, and when it was "just a category", no pages seemed to disappear from the category (the size remained identical, it's a rough estimate, one of two could have moved) over the following two weeks. So there is evidence that people just shrug when somebody adds a category to a page on their watchlist, but actually fix the page when somebody adds a template to it. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Bahá'u'lláh. 15:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep (with modifications). From Sherurcij's statement ugly seems to have benefits. If the purpose is for an alert and it is about forcing a behaviour then it does deliver awareness and motivation in the short term, hence there seems benefit in being big and bold. If there is no ability to distinguish a name, in the longer term it would seem to be that the template can be an eyesore. It would seem this becomes about management of the template, and once it has been in place for a period of time, that it can be removed or modified to something that applies just the category. Suggest that we apply a date feature to it, as happens with w:Template:Uncategorized, and look to have a parameter where it just adds the Category. PS. I always forget the correct category names. -- billinghurst (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
A date feature would be interesting, similar to WP's "citation needed since October 2008". After say, a year without anybody finding the author's initials - the template could be moved to the Author's talk page and a category applied as "Authors with unfound initials" or something. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Bahá'u'lláh. 18:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep to facilitate clean-up.--Jusjih (talk) 04:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Feminism for men[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Kept. Yann (talk) 11:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, It doesn't seem to meet Wikisource guidelines for inclusion. Yann (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
A brief look suggests it was written by w:Floyd Dell in 1917 Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Charles Sheldon. 22:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
May or may not be his work, the author did produce a work by that name, but the complete work is not available on line (that I could find) there are some quotes by him at Proceedings of the ... Annual Conference Under the Auspices of (1922) but they did not match the content we have here, and are from an magazine article . Jeepday (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I took this work directly from "Looking at Life" by Floyd Dell (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1924). That book is a collection of Dell's previously published essays. Most of those sources are issues of defunct periodicals. It is quoted in an essay by Ellen Kay Trimberger (who cites the book) and two essays by Michael Kimmel (who cites July 1914 issue of The Masses). In Looking at Life, the year of original creation/publication appears at the end of each essay, which is 1914. The essay is in the public domain. I scanned the essay, compared it side-by-side with the printed text, and corrected differences.
PS: Yann-when challenging a work, please explain WHY you think it does not meet policy or guidelines. It helps contributors respond directly to your concern. Greatworld (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Because there's no obvious clues who wrote it or when or whether it had ever been published before? Other people shouldn't have to dig up all that information, and with something like this I would have guessed it was an original essay too.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
It sounds like this is now a {{copyvio}} discussion. In terms of dealing with new works from new or very occasional users, it is difficult to manage anonymous contributions that do not meet the criteria. It becomes about managing expectations, and the process seems to not have a level of graduation of response. As a somewhat recent arrival, I can say as being newer to wiki, and new to WS that there is a steep learning curve. -- billinghurst (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I added info to the header template that IDs the author, essay title, year written, and 2 publications of the essay. The work is quoted and cited in 3 more recent essays (see q:Feminism for men). It is NOT a copyright violation. I didn't know how to add that info initially. Greatworld (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


Come on come out[edit]

The following discussion is closed: delete Jeepday (talk) 13:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
No author information; looks to be the lyrics of a band, doing a Google Search. Not for WS. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed.
I concur, deleted.Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Unknown source and license with the uploader notified.--Jusjih (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: delete - No validation of PD found, the image is one of several widely used on the web but no usage with source is found. Jeepday (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
English Wikipedia deleted the file with the same name for no source in 2006. Should we delete this for the same reason as well?--Jusjih (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I was under the impression that we only used images from Wikimedia Commons here (or at least when we were talking decorations.) I don't see where that one can stay if we have absolutely no information about it. The LoC has a couple pictures: one (LC-G432-2967) that might be PD, and (LC-USZ62-76969) that hasn't been evaluated. We may just have to delete all the images there, unless we can find a good one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Without commenting on the Teasdale image - we do not only use WMC images here -- since WMC demands that images be Public Domain in at least two jurisdictions, whereas we are often happy to have files be Public Domain in just one. So files that CAN be moved to WMC should be -- but we do keep a collection of our own as well. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Nostradamus‎. 03:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Commons does not demand that images be public domain in at least two jurisdictions. Images that were first published in the U.S. only need to be PD in the U.S. If someone can provide sufficient source information to show that this image was first published in the U.S. before 1923 (which seems highly probable), the image can be moved to Commons and used both at Wikipedia and here. If not, it should be deleted here for having no source info. Angr 08:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

United States v. Alexander[edit]

The following discussion is closed.
Deleted. Clear consensus. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure that the page United States v. Alexander permanent link meets our criteria, especially in the existing format, and without appropriate attribution. In my opinion, pages of a supposed legal content should have the highest referencing and attribution. -- billinghurst (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Arabism and racism[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted, WS:CSD#A1 out of scope for this project with an identical version at w:In_Criticism_of_arabism Jeepday (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, It doesn't seem to meet Wikisource guidelines for inclusion. Yann (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to W:Arabism and racism and delete here WS:CSD#A1, Jeepday (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It looks like a copy of w:In_Criticism_of_arabism, so G4 may be a better fit -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
    BTW, the wikipedia copy has a prod tag, so it will probably be gone in a few days. It was probably copied here in response to that. -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Transwiki somewhere. It doesn't seem to be a source. -- billinghurst (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I removed the prod at WP and suggested AfD, as well as putting a couple clean up tags on it. CSD G4 in my reading is only for duplicate copies on WS so I am deleting per A1 "transwikied to another project" Jeepday (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The Evening Song: A Prelude To Night[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Speedy delete Jeepday (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, This text doesn't seem to be published. [2] [3] Yann (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Author:Billy Lee[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted: Probable hoax, already deleted in April 2008. Yann (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a hoax. All works would be copyrighted anyway. Yann (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Unless he explicitly released them into the public domain or something. But I agree with delete until there's evidence he actually existed and published works that could uploaded here within the next few years or so. William Lee doesn't look promising. Angr 18:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete w:Billy Lee and it's single reference do not indicate any published worked. A search for random selections credited to him in Author:Billy Lee did not find even a hint. I don't think we have a policy on deleting authors pages related to time until their works become PD. Jeepday (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Links irrelevant, titles don't show in Google searches. Croboy no search results. -- billinghurst (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The Book of Kevin[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Unpublished. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The following is someone's attempt at humour, and if it belongs anywhere that has unpublished humour. The person does need to learn how to spell too. -- billinghurst (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

General Theory of Evolution[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Joseph McCabe. 00:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Seem to be unpublished. See w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theory of natural falsification. Yann (talk) 10:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. -- billinghurst (talk) 11:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete; no evidence that it's been peer-reviewed in any manner.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

PanArabism racism[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted Yann (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I think it doesn't fit within our criterias: no author, no license, and no date of publication mentioned. Yann (talk) 12:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it was already discussed and deleted. See Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2009-02#Arabism_and_racism. Yann (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)