Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2010-11

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.

Kept

User:Dilyaratan

The following discussion is closed:

User blanked their own page, no further action seems necessary. — Cygnis insignis (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

An IP user marked this as {{Delete|Non-sense page, spam-like message which is same in many Wikis.}}. I think they were intending a sdelete, but I brought it here anyway. I was tempted to just remove the tag, as it's a user page with one edit, but Dilyaratan has put a pretty similar user page on many wikiprojects. His SUL page is concerning. Are we generous here and let it ride, or strict and delete the clearly out of scope user page of a user who doesn't seem to be doing anything constructive?--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

  • I lean towards let it ride, but one could also assume that the IP is the author requesting delete of his own page. JeepdaySock (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
    • "Non-sense page, spam-like message which is same in many Wikis."? I doubt it's the author requesting deletion of his own page. If the author was manic-depressive, I could see nonsense, but I don't think I've ever heard someone use the word spam to describe their own work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't know - the user appears to have been blocked for a month on his/her orginating wikipedia site (Turkish) for doing pretty much the same thing since joing in May 2010 (though admittedly the language differences may show otherwise) just a few days ago. I'd hate to make this call for a User's page based solely on a lone IP account's protest but Prosfilaes is probaably right in thinking it's beyond scope - I vote  Delete -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  •  Keep What's the point of deleting it? It doesn't save disk space because the file's still there. The user is blocked on trwiki; I speak no Turkish so don't know why. He is blocked nowhere else and his page has not been deleted on enwiki, though it has in some places.--Longfellow (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
    • The point of deleting it is to discourage the use of Wikimedia servers for purposes unrelated to the mission of Wikimedia and its individual projects.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • ambivalent It is of little or no value, though hardly could be spam; though I don't know whether we should be bothered housing a static page. If there more, then I would say that we would have a process to delete them. For info, the Turkish block says "Policy violation". — billinghurst sDrewth 03:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


Happy Birthday to You

The following discussion is closed:

Fixed with source provided, Cygnis insignis (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone added it as a gag, I gave it a header, some notes, a link to the original, and added it here. Cygnis insignis (talk) 11:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep; it's an ugly mess over all, but I found a 1911 work in Google Books that clearly has the text (with Dear John instead of Dear ----) so there should be no question.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Cool!, is that the earliest and closest version? You should change it to John if you are going with that source, I couldn't access that page or find another copy. The article has a gap in the history, we can fix that if we have a reference to these early publications? Cygnis insignis (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if that's the oldest; it's just a copy I found. I uploaded the Google copy to http://www.archive.org/details/TheElementaryWorkerAndHisWorktreatingTheBeginnersAndPrimary if you'd like to look at it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

 Keep Nobody's serious about deleting it, are they? Few songs are better known.--Longfellow (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment being well-known doesn't annul copyright; noting that we have a list of works that are well-known and we have deleted. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Author:Samuel Alito

The following discussion is closed:

kept 16:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Author has no works. - Presidentman (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Not established as a reason to delete. You either mean 'he is not an author' or to ask the question, 'do we delete authors who have no works at the site?'. The answer to the latter is no, that is why there is a template for such pages. cygnis insignis 21:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Found one anyway Microsoft v. AT&T, 550 U.S. 437 (2007). He'll get a subpage for at least this opinion when the entire case is broken out like the rest. It's fairly recent so we haven't got to it yet is all. George Orwell III (talk) 02:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Having no listed works is not usually a criteria for deletion, it is more whether we are likely to be able to host their works as they are in the public domain. Generally if someone has no works listed, then you can poke {{populate}} into the description field. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)



Deleted

History of the Organization of the Armor and Cavalry

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Author's consent. — George Orwell III (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC) This page and the subsequent pages to which it links through the "next" field are duplicates of these pages: ARMOR-CAVALRY: Part 1; Regular Army and Army Reserve. For example, the page Revolutionary War is a duplicate of ARMOR-CAVALRY: Part 1; Regular Army and Army Reserve/Revolutionary War.

It seems that the nominated page and the subsequent pages should be deleted, given they seem to be part of one work, and thus are better located in subpages. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

 Comment- The stand-alone pages' content already exist as subpages of the main article (ARMOR-CAVALRY: Part 1; Regular Army and Army Reserve). These are actually redundant duplicates as stand-alones. None of the stand-alone pages are linked by any other articles save the ones linked in the header as the previous & next values. The stand-alone pages are:

. . . and then it points back to "Tanks" instead of mirroring the rest of the good, main-article's sub-pages as far as I can tell. George Orwell III (talk) 02:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 Delete - All the above's content exists properly under a main as sub-pages. Making them redirects with or without disambiguation only makes things worse due to the rather general titles used, not mention pointless since the stand-alone link path ends prematurely anyway. We'd get things like World War I filling in for other inncorrect uses of World War I and similar. Delete Them All. George Orwell III (talk) 02:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)  Delete - GO's arguments are convincing.--Longfellow (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)  Delete - This was my first attempt to structuring and got lost in the process. - Ineuw (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


Haitian Creole - English

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Beyond scope. — Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC) I am not sure what to make of this work. It has no licence and from searches on the web, the licence data is not available, and it just seems to be paste of another set of web pages. It pushes up against the boundaries of WS:WWI though maybe I am just being a purist. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that something that's only ever existed on the Web is not within scope.--Longfellow (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


Category:Palestinian Nation

The following discussion is closed:

Done — billinghurst sDrewth 11:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be a duplicate (with a less suitable name) of Category:Palestine. —innotata 21:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Tales of Father Goose

The following discussion is closed:

Delete as probable copyvio — Cygnis insignis (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I can find no evidence of publication, so the copyright is mystery, I suspect it is self-publication here. The work and its subpages were made from an ip account: contribs. Cygnis insignis (talk) 02:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

With a statement that it was published in 2000, I reckon it can be speedied as {{copyvio}} on the original publication details, let alone the translation. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Clear copyvio.--Longfellow (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Cygnis insignis (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
no don't so deleted. — billinghurst sDrewth 03
21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Wikivar

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Obsolete template. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Template:Wikivar is an ancient template that pre-dates magic words and parser functions, and is not being used, and has been so surpassed in its functionality and with mediawiki development, it never will be. I think that we can bury it now. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

 Delete Yes, this is an archaic mess.--Longfellow (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 Delete Per Billinghurst. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 20:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 Delete Per Billinghurst. George Orwell III (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


Template:WpEnergyPortal

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 02:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC) {{WpEnergyPortal}} I'm not comfortable with this. Advertising our own portals, yes. Directing people to sister projects, yes. But advertising a portal on a sister project seems a bridge too far. It was created in February 2007 and immediately transcluded onto Category:Energy, and has not been used anywhere since. Hesperian 23:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

  • delete template or convert to generic sister project link, and replace as appropiate. I wouldn't think that we would have a specific need for dedicated templates for linking to specific projects on sister wikis, though I do feel that from Portal: and Category: namespace that there can and should be crosslinking to respective namespaces on sister wikis. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • delete. An old oddball John Vandenberg (chat) 03:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  •  Delete Even if we did advertise other wikis' portals (and we don't), we would want a more versatile template rather than one for every portal at every wiki. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 02:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


Three templates Caseside...

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nominator. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 02:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Three templates that are not in use, and have been around since 2006, Template:CaseSidenote, Template:CaseSidenoteOpen, Template:CaseSidenoteClose. As we have other templates that do sidenotes and have wider usage, it would seem more appropriate to delete these. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


Metro Broadcasting Inc. v. Federal Communications Co.mmission

The following discussion is closed:

Speedy Delete. Redundant (Title Typo). — George Orwell III (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Metro Broadcasting Inc. v. Federal Communications Co.mmission is a dupe of Metro Broadcasting Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission. LegalSkeptic (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


{{BeStand}}

The following discussion is closed:

Speedy Delete. I cannot see any use for this template, which is in German and links to a non-existent template with a german name. It is not currently used anywhere.--Longfellow (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

A similar one is {{RE}}.--Longfellow (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
User:S8w4 created a number of these. I hope this is premature, and that we will delete them all at creator's request, instead of taking the more aggressive route of proposed deletions.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


Author:Walter Richard Brookins

The following discussion is closed:

deleted not WS:WWI — billinghurst sDrewth 00:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Something created at sometime by someone with articles that don't seem to meet our criteria. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

 Delete Walter Richard Brookins was undoubtedly a notable person. However, he seems not to be the author of anything, least of all those news items.--Longfellow (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Pundrik goswami

The following discussion is closed:

deleted. ResScholar (talk) 10:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC) This is a biography of a certain Swami who hosts the website WWW.VAIJAYANTI.ORG. They claim they spread preaching about Krishna as described through an itinerary of tour dates and places. They also profess to do some charity work. He and his coterie don't seem to speak English, and used a translator to make their website, as when I checked the first audio clip listed under "Audio", the speaker wasn't using English.

Along with descriptions of this group's teachers and teachings in English, there are only ten audio and ten video clips and a Youtube video, if I'm not mistaken. My point being, there are no books on the site; they don't seem to have published a book, so this is not a written, published biography we have, thus not meeting WWI. ResScholar (talk) 06:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


{{If-TOC}}

The following discussion is closed:

deleted — billinghurst sDrewth 12:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No longer used since four years when it was replaced by {{header}}. — Phe (talk) 05:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:The Tragedy of Julius Ceasar

The following discussion is closed:

deleted

This category is empty and is clearly a typo.--Longfellow (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Integrated building and security management and Appvision

The following discussion is closed:

speedily deleted

Both Integrated building and security management and Appvision are outside the scope of Wikisource. Integrated building and security management looks like original content (it says "by Lheatley" and the only contributor is User:Lheatley). Both appear to be reference material. stephen (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Humanity And Peace

The following discussion is closed:

to be deleted, user advised several times, only response was to continue uploads

The site says, "LOOKING FOR PUBLISHER", which seems to indicate that it only appears at poem.blog.co.in. This could conflict with our scope as a library, not a publisher, and may not be eligible for inclusion. I advised those appearing in the edit history. cygnis insignis 10:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd say WS:OR applies.--Longfellow (talk) 14:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
The pages are now saying it is release by the author. Though I am still not sure where these poems were first published besides here at Wikisource. I say delete them. Wabbit98 talk, 8:15am (PST), 30 September 2010
I have added the template {{delete}} to the identified work
Special:Contributions/Munnanmisra should also be under consideration

There were further contributions added at about the same time that would seem should have a similar consideration for deletion, and I have asked the contributor to address these as well as this work.

  • Initial feeling delete unless the contributor can reasonably quickly support that they have been otherwise published. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - including Hanuman Chalisa, a slap-dash transwiki from Commons back in May for the same reason(s) from what I can gather. Please Note: several recent interlinks to most, if not all, of those works that were improperly added to existing disambiguation pages have been reverted already. Works artificially moved to top of category tree(s). George Orwell III (talk) 05:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete still the same reason I stated earlier. Wabbit98 talk 11:07pm (PST), 3 October 2010
Comment there was a little narrative added to my talk page, and feel that unless there is information to keep that there has been the opportunity to substantiate why the work should stay. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Indekso de aŭtoroj

The following discussion is closed:

deleted — billinghurst sDrewth 01:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

A template in a foreign language that may have been created here in error. Unused, unlikely to be used at enWS. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


Other

Template:Space

The following discussion is closed:

Deprecated and reserved (so we don't have it recreated by well meaning folks), and all uses replaced with {{gap}}, etc. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 02:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC) An old style template that has a lot of detail with it that is inelegant (cracking nuts with sledgehammers). I would recommend that we would be looking to replace this with the more elegant and extensible {{gap}}. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't heard anything negative about removal of the template, and am looking to see if I can close this out and remove/deprecate the template. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Deleting templates wrecks the formatting of old revisions of content. IMO, the template should be marked as deprecated, and usage replaced where appropriate. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. I can see John's point. But unlike on Wikipedia, I don't think we get much value out of our old revisions here on Wikisource. Because we are trying to copy a book, we know what perfection looks like, and with very rare exceptions the current version is closer to that state than older versions. Old revisions are inferior and offer us no insights. I would prefer to see these old, dodgy templates terminated.

    A compromise position might be to re-implement this as a {{gap}} wrapper: i.e. {{gap|{{{1|0}}}em}}. Or, better still, redirect it to {{gap}} and update the calls to include the "em".

    Hesperian 04:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Deprecation or deletion or merging should be made on a case by case basis. On this occasion, I would believe that we should be making it a redirect to {{gap}}. My reasoning being that it a replacement template with similar functionality, and that Space isn't a widely used template anyway. The number of cases in this instance where there would be permanent link to a historical piece where it would be a significant difference would be next to zero. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  •  Delete I have been looking through the usage of this template and replacing. I have not found any situation where it is not semantically better to use:
  • {{Gap}} for a certain sized ⁠ gap between words (redaction, forcing a right-aligned indent etc). In this case a template that explicitly adds spaces is wrong, as the desired effect is to add a gap of a certain size, not 7 spaces, which just so happen to be about the right size.
  • Removal and change to an application of a div style for paragraph indents (a deprecated use of {{gap}}, see above)
  • Replacement with a single "nbsp" to add a space in a template or something. A template {{space|1}} seems pretty clunky, especially as it doesn't just add nbsp, but all kinds of spaces.
  • I am working on a case by case basis, so don't worry about automated wholesale replacement without respect to the context. I have noticed, however that the use of this template accompanies poor formatting in general, perhaps because this is clunky way to format used by those who use the space bar to tab in word processors! ;-) I am, however, working toward eventual deletion and/or redirection (I prefer deletion, as if you really need exactly 29 spaces you can use {{loop|29| }} or similar, and once all uses are gone, we can just use gap as best practice, no redirects to clutter it up!) Inductiveload—talk/contribs 16:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


File:Popularscience test a.png

The following discussion is closed:

Moved to Commons (along with description). Inductiveload—talk/contribs 02:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC) I thought it useful to keep this example at the scriptorium, for those with the same line of questioning, but there has been two requests to delete this file. I declined the first request, but maybe I'm overlooking something. I don't really mind either way, delete or keep? Cygnis insignis (talk) 03:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Its value lies in its instruction and link. I would suggest a move to Commons, or leaving it here. If push came to shove, the former. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2010-11&oldid=11497998"