Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2010-03

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in March 2010, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Kept

Author:Moses

The following discussion is closed:

speedy keepbillinghurst sDrewth 12:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Earlier this week I declined a speedy delete request on this page, per rationale "Moses is a mythological figure". Though there clearly was no grounds for a speedy delete, on reflection I think this merits discussion.

Whether Moses is a historical or mythological figure is perhaps not as interesting a question as whether he can be said to have authored any extant works. Per w:Mosaic authorship:

"Mosaic authorship was accepted almost without question by both Jews and Christians until the 17th century AD, but the rise of secular scholarship eventually led to its rejection by many. It still has followers among conservative religious scholars, who seek to reconcile it with modern scholarly findings."

I guess the options are to delete it, or to make it crystal clear that all works listed are attributed according to specific religious traditions, and this attribution is not accepted by mainstream scholars.

Hesperian 10:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been listing the Homeric Hymns under Homer. Yes, a couple of them are dated to the second century AD, but there's no other place to put them. All the works by Moses have a Bible collection they could be stuck under, and listing them under Moses separates them out from the rest of that collection, not all of which have convenient author names, and I doubt anyone is really going to be looking under Moses, but in theory, I have no objection to author names that are more convenient than accurate.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

As Profilaes intimated, we have to put them somewhere, and clustering under/attributing to Moses seems okay to me. billinghurst sDrewth 11:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've done this; if that suffices, I don't mind if we speedily close this. Hesperian 12:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, I did a conversion to dates, stuck on a licence, and rem'd the dud template billinghurst sDrewth 12:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted

Category:Eccentric denominations and Category:Smaller religious movements

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted 1 and 2, kept 3 per Sherucij and Cirt. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Category:Eccentric denominations
2. Category:Smaller religious movements
3. Category:New religious movements

These two categories are inappropriate, as they would be a subjective, rather than objective categorization. As such they should be deleted and not be used. To contrast this, the category Category:New religious movements is more appropriate, as it can be shown that multiple scholars in secondary sources have referred to groups and organizations as such (see w:List of new religious movements). Cirt (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete, NRM is a scholastic term, these other two terms seem to be original Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din.} 00:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• I can't argue against "Smaller religious movements" since I just cleaned that one out. "Eccentric denominations" has the benefit of being objectively defined as unconventional, and unconnected with any of the principal religious categories. (Do you have a better term?) "New" is a subjective term that is best avoided because it will always be changing. Some of the things now in that category (Aquarian Gospel, Urantia Book, et al.} aren't new at all. The theology of some shows as affinity to Christian or other religious mainstreams, and are best organized as denominations within those groups. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 00:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Response: In books: 1,571 on "new religious movements" versus 8 on "Eccentric denominations". Cirt (talk) 02:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

What do Google hits have to do with this? This discussion is about categories, and how best to develop a coherent organizational structure. Your novelty cults won't stay new forever, and since most of what happens here is about public domain material one can expect that most of it won't be used here. You still haven't even given a precise explanation of what you mean by new, nor have you explained how the two categories being discussed are mutually exclusive. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 07:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Your suggested term and the other one are of the subjective invention of those that created the categories. The term "new religious movements", however, is objectively defined by religious scholars. And those are not simply "google hits", but rather mentions in books. Cirt (talk) 08:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Sherurcij makes a good point. "Eccentric" in particular is the sort of term that might be viewed as pejorative by a religion's members. "New religious movement", in spite of its use of the word new is a common phrase in serious scholarship and is preferred by adherents of various organizations as non-pejorative. Durova (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • You still don't answer my point. If you have a preferable word to replace "eccentric" (which I use in the most literal sense, and not pejoratively), and which communicates the idea, that's fine. Pretending that a pop culture term like "new religious movement" has anything to to with serious scholarship does nothing to define precisely what it means. Neither has anyone tried to distinguish between a denomination and a movement. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Eclecticology, I will assume good faith that you have not yet read the scholarship relating to this topic. "New religious movement" is most certainly not a "pop culture term", and it definitely has received serious scholarship in literally thousands of scholarly publications. Cirt (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
      • If it's such a "scholarly" term why are you resisting precise definition. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
        • As always Wikipedia gives a good starting point for New religious movement. It is clearly a widley used "scholarly" term. The same cannot be said for the other two; they appear poorly named, redundant and virtually empty (can Freemasonry even be sensibly classed as an eccentric denomination?). Eclecticology, in my opinion, you must provide really good reasons why we should be grouping movements along different lines to all the academics. Finally on the use of "new", it is the academics job to name movements, and it is they who will have to come up with a name for the next wave of religions. We need not be concerned about that. Suicidalhamster (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
          • To say that academics have the right to name such movements is a specious ivory-tower argument. When have Wikimedia projects ever kissed ass in that way? Sure your term is widely used, even by scholars, but they are at least honest enough to recognize that it is ill-defined. In the Wikipedia article: "Use of the term is not universally accepted among the groups to which it is applied." ... in the link at http://www.cesnur.org/2001/mi_june03.htm : "It is somewhat ironic that, at a conference on the future of religion, a paper should be devoted to a category which is being slowly dismantled, and may have, as such, no future." Of the other two terms I am only arguing for one; there is general agreement to delete the other. "Poorly named" is a fair criticism, but I'm willing to help in the search for a neutral solution. It's not at all redundant, because unlike your term it's not time limited; the wandering preachers who wandered about Europe causing mayhem in the 13th century and the rest of the Renaissance could just as easily fit into the category. The virtual emptiness is only a temporary by-product of the present exercise. The Freemasons are in there because they were already classified as a religion; if there is general agreement that they are not a religion I have no problem removing them from any sub-category of religion. Eclecticology - the offended (talk)
            • This should not be up to the "general agreement" of individual website users as to what characterization is or is not appropriate, we should defer to what scholars have said in reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 02:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
              • With respect extended toward Eclecticology, it does seem simpler to organize pages at Wikisource according to terminology that is already in broad academic use. It's not an ideological stand so much as a service to the site's readers. Durova (talk) 02:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Things can be categorised by "Religion", then to major religions; things not fitting into a major religion can be be categorised to their specific religious branch, or left in "Religion". There are new religious movements, there are defunct religious movements, but terms like "eccentric" and "small" are fairly perjorative. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din.} 02:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, and "new religious movement" is generally seen within scholarship not to be a pejorative. Cirt (talk) 04:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete 1 & 2, keep 3 Sherurcij's statement summarises nicely for me; with other commentary having influenced my POV. -- billinghurst (talk) 04:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete 1 & 2, Keep 3 I see that Eclecticology (talk • contribs) added Category:New religious movements into this deletion discussion [1], I had not previously noticed that. So I agree with the sentiment expressed above by Billinghurst. Cirt (talk) 06:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• I originated Category:Smaller religious movements because I figured there's a lot of them and that they might be dwarfed when compared to the larger movements with many sub and sub-sub categories. They could at least belong to a group that has many subcategories. There are often books written about a selected number of related small groups, but few about a particular small group. So I vote Delete 1; Keep 2 & 3. ResScholar (talk) 07:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I took a look, and only one of them would be classified as small that isn't already in new religious groups. You all can delete it. I'll recreate it if we make it up to 3 books about small religious groups that aren't new. ResScholar (talk) 07:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Ex libris

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted and removed from use.

The template ex libris to me seems to be redundant

1. with Page status, no text we can manage this a different means
2. it simply redirects to another template that says use page image

I propose that we delete the template and remove its use from the pages where it is used. billinghurst (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hearing no objection, I'll work on this. —LarryGilbert (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. —LarryGilbert (talk) 02:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

File:1925 Heidi illustration.jpg

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted (copyright violation).

I wonder where exactly this file is from and to be used. If a confirmed source is available, it should go to Wikimedia Commons. I nominate this here just to catch better attention.--Jusjih (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

While it should be migrated, its source is clearly given as "Heidi, illustration by Louis Rhead (1857-1926)", as a 1925 illustration. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Thomas Carlyle.} 03:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

In what volume was it printed? Why should we believe that it's not copyrighted in the US?--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That particular version (illustrated by Rhead) was originally printed in 1925, and had its copyright renewed in 1953. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. —LarryGilbert (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:South African legislation formatting templates and all its members

The following discussion is closed.

These templates were part of an experiment in formatting that I have decided not to use after all. None of the templates are transcluded anywhere any more. You could consider it a speedy deletion type G7 (author's request), but I brought it here because there's no way to request a speedy deletion for a whole set of templates without tagging them individually. - Htonl (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Done Tarmstro99 (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The Travels of Salman the Persian

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.—Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced, and evidently a translation. In asking Sherurcij to look he believed that it was a modern translation.

• Delete as per nom. billinghurst (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The 2007 Phoenix News Helicopter Collision

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Even beyond the copyright issues, I think this is riding the edge of what Wikisource includes. Not very complete, poorly sourced, and contains some editorializing and original content. —LarryGilbert (talk) 05:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Delete it is more than one article if it stays, and when looked at from that perspective, it should go. Archives of WikiNews if anywhere. billinghurst (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Page:A Hebrew and English Lexicon (Brown-Driver-Briggs).djvu/829

The following discussion is closed:

speedy delete, test on page billinghurst sDrewth 12:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

IP test. Phe (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Author:Frank Thomas Smith

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Claim is for editor of a web page. JeepdaySock (talk) 11:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I am prepared to speedy it based on the criteria that there is little prospect that we will host works for them. As per previous discussions and resolutions of this forum. billinghurst sDrewth 14:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No objection to speedy delete JeepdaySock (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:User languages kok

The following discussion is closed:

speedy delete, Created yesterday and immediately nominated for speedy deletion as "empty and not likely to be used". No speedy deletion criteria quite covers it, and I wasn't quite willing to speedy it anyhow. Bringing it here for what I expect will be a summary judgement. Hesperian 00:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't fit our system of user language categories, so I'd go ahead and delete it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Jeepday (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Dynamax rhyme syndicate

The following discussion is closed:

Speedy deleted — billinghurst sDrewth 15:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Not suitable for WS. Looks like something the IP couldn't get in to Wikipedia. Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 14:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Other

Notification of deletions

As per a previous discussion about Author pages created with little likelihood for WS to be able to host works, I have deleted a number of Author: pages created by 164.113.135.67 (talk • contribs). I have left a note on the contributor's page.-- billinghurst (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Sir Patrick Spens

I have merged Sir Patrick Spens into Child's Ballads/58 as that includes the same text plus more. Is that ok? --Filceolaire (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

If you did due diligence, then that sounds okay. -- billinghurst (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• This is a problematical situation. The contents of Sir Patrick Spens were not sourced so there is no way to determine whether it was taken from Child, or to otherwise properly identify its provenance. That being the case, it might as well redirect. Talk:Child's Ballads gives the source for these pages as http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/eng/child/index.htm. That source is itself an abridgement of Child's second version. It still appears there under its correct title The English and Scottish Popular Ballads. If someone has a mind to do the work all of these ballads should appear under that title instead of the colloquial Child's Ballads. That would also serve to distinguish it from the earlier version (rather than edition) if the compilation, which went under the simpler title English and Scottish ballads. The numbering of the ballads was different in that version. Note too that the version used as a source also omits Child's detailed commentary about each ballad. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

I'm going to nominate a work for speedy deletion as part of routine clean-up. I would like someone else to carry out the deletion as a verification of my reasoning. I may decide to do more, in case nobody has time to do them, and they end up sitting there, and you start to wonder what they're doing there. ResScholar (talk) 08:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Either Index:Eight Harvard Poets.djvu or Index:Eight Harvard Poets (1917).djvu and underlying image files

The following discussion is closed:

merged with Index:Eight Harvard Poets.djvu billinghurst (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

These appear to be duplicates of one another. Unfortunately, both have been edited. Can someone with an interest in the content please attempt to consolidate the edited pages under one or the other index so we can delete one of the duplicates? Tarmstro99 (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep the first (has text layer), deleted the second. Move proofread pages from the second to the first. Should be fairly easy with agreed position. billinghurst (talk) 06:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Should this be done with a move action for each "Page:" page, or would it be safer to copy and paste the content? —LarryGilbert (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Did it carefully with tools. Had it on my 'round tuit' list. Done.billinghurst (talk)