Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2009-04

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


Hewitt v. Hewitt[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Kept. Jude (talk) 00:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
This appears to be the proceedings for a case regarding family law. I cannot find any more information about this case which establishes any notability of this case, apart from this page. I'm unsure if this is a major precedent in American law and is thus significant, but unless this is indeed the case, I'm not sure why we're including it. Jude (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a published decision from an appellate court. That's enough, without any need to evaluate such a subjective notion as notability. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
    To clarify, "77 Ill. 2d 49, 394 N.E.2d 1204" at the article's head is a standard legal citation to the same case in two separate law reports.Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep under our inclusion criteria. Delete personal opinion. Is the evidence that it has been published? Yes, decision of the court, published where? While I would like to see court decisions fall under a test of historical significance for inclusion, I can see one commentary so it seems that with the evidence I have to argue against my personal opinion. -- billinghurst (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy kept due to my misunderstanding of policy. Sorry! Jude (talk) 00:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


Bible (Wikisource) blank slates[edit]

The following discussion is closed.
Will delete - Pathoschild agrees, you agree, I agree. Seems sensible. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

user:Pathoschild has previously deleted blank slates in this wiki translation; these are the ones I can find:

Alternatively we could add icons to Bible (Wikisource) to indicate it is a blank slate, and something like {{incomplete translation}} to each page. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Federal Power Act[edit]

The following discussion is closed.
Deleted.Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not the actual text of the statute. It is someone's summary of it. It is not clear whose summary it is.—Markles 20:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not my area of expertise. If it is not a published summary or the act at that time, then it seems that it should be deleted. I can see that the page is referenced at w:Federal Power Act. -- billinghurst (talk) 04:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete. From the looks of it, this was copied over from Wikipedia by someone back in 2005. It's clearly not the actual text of the act--I'll do some digging on Wikipedia to see if there's any record of who actually submitted the summary, but, even if the case is that someone submitted it to Wikipedia, that would mean it doesn't fit our criteria of being previously published. Jude (talk) 12:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Constitution of the Principality of Sealand[edit]

The following discussion is closed.
Deletion upheld as before.Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.
Deleted.Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


There is no source and no license, and an anonymous editor are put some valid questions about this text (copied from the talk page). Yann (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

  • The occupation of Roughs Tower and the declaration of Sealand as an independent nation was on September 2, 1967. But this text is dated September 2, 1966 - one year earlier (!)
  • As we can find within the Official Website - - the first constitution was proclaimed on September 25, 1975 (!). A second constitution was signed into force the late 1990's (
  • There's a completely different constitutional text shown in the Sealand-Newspages (see

-- 10:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete No evidence for anything. -- billinghurst (talk) 06:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello. fr:User:Volcan found this constitution :, thought it seems to be a little different from the one that has been deleted. Is it enought to create a new Constitution of the Principality of Sealand with this new text ? Thanks ! Dodoïste (talk) 12:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Not necessarily. There's still the issue of copyright: I guess it could be considered a "government edict", but as Sealand is not recognised officially by the United States, as far as I'm aware, so I don't believe that the {{PD-GovEdit}} template would apply. As such, it could be assumed that the text is still copyrighted by whmever wrote the original. Jude (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks for the answer. Dodoïste (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
One can as easily reach the opposite conclusion about the copyright issue. If the United States does not recognize Sealand as a country it also does not have copyright relations with it, and that would put anything published there in the public domain. If these people want to call themselves a country they must accept the consequences of that claim. The inability to establish which version of this "constitution" is authoritative is a much stronger argument for its exclusion. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Though if it is not accepted as being declared a nation, then they are covered by an existing copyright law of United Kingdom, though one could then consider it either as a manifesto or work of fiction. Simply don't want to go there. -- billinghurst (talk) 03:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Mūlamadhyamakakārikā: first chapter in romanized Sanskrit with diacritics[edit]

The following discussion is closed.
Deleted per Yann. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Template added, but not mentioned here. Yann (talk) 10:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This text also already exists on oldwikisource:Mūlamadhyamakakārikā: first chapter in romanized Sanskrit with diacritics, submitted as recently as yesterday. There has been no further editing to either text however. Jude (talk) 00:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Deleted Yann (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
This template is no different to Template:PD-USGov, and is such not required on the project. It also seems to be specialised towards images rather than towards texts, even though it is not used for any images. Furthermore, it is only transcluded on two pages: a single document, and the author page for that document. I think it should be replaced by Template:PD-USGov, either as a redirect, or it be deleted and its instances of use replaced with Template:PD-USGov. Jude (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Crito in Simple English[edit]

The following discussion is closed: This translation has failed. Deleted per both below. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
See previous discussion here.

This was nominated for deletion in late 2007 and eventually kept in early 2008 on the proviso that the translation would be completed shortly. Currently, the text is quite short and certainly nowhere near complete, and hasn't been edited since well before the deletion discussion was completed. I'd say that a year is enough time to establish that this is a failed translation, and as such, it ought to be deleted. Jude (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete At some point our quality control needs to kick in, and I'd agree with Jude's summation. Reasonable and practical. -- billinghurst (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Author:Billy Lee[edit]

The following discussion is closed: speedy delete, previously deleted billinghurst (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I think Author:Billy Lee should probably be deleted, as it's most likely a hoax and if not, there's probably nothing of the author's in the public domain. I can find no evidence of the author in the Library of Congress catalog, and "foremost writer in the Croboy World and United Spades" sends up red flares for me. Nor does Wikipedia seem to have anything on this author. And as an author writing between 1967 and 1999, it's unlikely that he would have anything published in the public domain. This is the user's only creation, questionable in and of itself, though far from impossible for a legitimate user.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)



The following discussion is closed: Implement the solution proposed by Sherurcij at 14:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC) (keep) —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Category:Translations should be deleted, and all texts bot-moved to Category:Works by original language, where we can begin parsing them by original language. But a "Work originally in French" is obviously a translation, we don't need two separate categories to tell us that. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Romain Rolland. 18:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I have to agree. Translations and works originally in another language is redundant. Delete.Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree. -- billinghurst (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
    Rider. I can easily remember Translations so can we preferentially amend to a redirect? -- billinghurst (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • "Works originally in ..." is an awkward and not easily remembered construction. "Translations from ..." is more easily remembered. The migration should be inn the opposite direction to the original proposal. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
It seems that Category:Translations by the translator may have been a supercategory for the last two that you mentioned. They're from the same time, by the same person. Your comments look more like a proposal to reorganize this entire family of categories. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 05:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Putting "Translations" as a top level category makes sense. The "from" could be considered implicit by convention in Category:Translations:French. Translations "to" French normally belong on fr:ws anyway. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
It's not worth it to save six characters (including the spaces) if it makes the meaning more opaque. We don't need to save the space.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
True. I can live with or without the "from". It comes down to a question of what will be most easily remembered by a newbie editor. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Louis Lingg[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Discussion to Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations
Earlyish text to WS, sitting unformatted. Quoted as Sourced from autobiography though is very short for an autobiography, and not one that I can readily find referenced. The closest that I can find is The Autobiographies of the Haymarket Martyrs which is published in 1977, though no knowledge of whether that is just a new rendition or the first publication date.-- billinghurst (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
This might be better listed at WS:COPYVIO, and for the record, the uploader in question has a past history of issues with the posting of copyright violations. Jude (talk) 02:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
k -- billinghurst (talk) 08:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)