Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2011-04

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 on 01 April 2011, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.


Duplicate works by Bertrand Russell[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Keep, slightly different versions by different publishers. No consensus to delete. Jeepday (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
My cursory review suggests that Roads to Freedom: Socialism, Anarchism, and Syndicalism and Proposed Roads to Freedom: Socialism, Anarchism, and Syndicalism may be duplicate copies of the same work, although I have not checked all the nested subpages to verify this. Does anyone know which version is the “correct” one? Tarmstro99 (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Roads to ... 1918 London: Allen and Unwin and Proposed Roads to ... 1919 New York: Holt, the latter has a short preface added. Two similar editions, not reformatted, but who knows if they duplicates; it seems somebody wanted a different title at least, I would almost expect there to be other editorial changes. Cygnis insignis (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)



The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Per Authors requests Jeepday (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The page Primero is not a complete work at best (so not WS:WWI, in that it states that it is an extract and due to the language comments, it looks to be more of an article. Comment to the contributor has brought no response. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
At that time I didn't know what I was doing, for me everything is Wikipedia. So, User:Billinghust, I would like to learn how to help. Maybe the first step would be to have somebody teach me what and how to do the job. Thanks Krenakarore (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Plus: Thanks User:Cygnis insignis. Funny how that page's birthday will be tomorrow ! I didn't get what you meant by: "content". If I can say sth, the best would be to delete it and start from the scratch. Your guindance would come in handy... :) ! Krenakarore (talk) 22:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
No worries, I clicked your global contribs and saw you were active. What is the source of the content: was it published somewhere, who is White, did he translate the text, and in what year did he do this? cygnis insignis 22:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Scratch that, I see "↑ Notes and queries‎, p. 3, vol. 127, William White - 1913". One question, where did you get hold of the text, at a website or the print edition? cygnis insignis 23:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

A Peace of Jerusalem[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted for several reasons (none of which relate to electronic version only) it fails WS:WWI#Evolving works and contributor comment "It has been decided by the composing group that posting the document to Wikipedia and Wikisource was a mistake". Jeepday (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
This was proposed for speedy deletion on the grounds that "This does not appear to have been published, except on the Web". That appears to be an accurate statement, but I'm not comfortable making a unilateral decision on this, so bringing it here. Hesperian 00:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment — At face value, I don't think the issue here is one of being "web-published" only - rather the fact it is lacking x number of interim revisions that this ongoing collaboration has undergone since "first" posted (Published) back in 2009. For me, the lack of progressions since makes this work WS:CSD (A2) Non-notable Content and lean towards deletion, at this point, for that reason alone. George Orwell III (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
With respect, G.O.III, you seem to be saying that a collaboratively-developed, electronic document becomes unsuitable for posting on Wikisource simply because its collaborative publishing phase has been frozen for a time — or marked final. Imahd 01:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I meant no such thing. Personally I have no objection to web-only works IF they are formatted as if they were going to be put to proper publishing/printing anyway, peer reviewed, editor checked and so on. The fact it is collaboration is also not the issue here either. It's an either/or caveat - either each revision made is posted and grouped together accordingly or ultimately only a final draft is added to WS. What we have here is not the first draft, nor any & all subsequent revisions to date and it's not the finished agreed upon end result. I ask myself, "Where is the proper context needed for such an ongoing collaborative work? Where's a finished product of the collaboration?" As it stands, the work is non-notable (in my humble opinion) because it has not over-come the hurdles already present when it comes to web-only works in addition to the lack of progression I'd desire in such a work (some context thru revisions). I can't "check it" via normal channels because its not published in the traditional manner nor can you prove what is provided has actually been a collaboration & not just one person's internet ramblings (no insult intended there btw)... so what's exactly is the rationale of WS hosting the work here again? George Orwell III (talk) 01:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if I misread you, G.O.III. So far, this version is the only version that has ever been posted to Wikisource. It may also be the last. There is a discussion underway right now to determine whether the "frozen" version should be declared the final version. As a "way forward" document, it was never intended to be definitive; the situation, of course, is much too complicated to be summed up and resolved in just a few pages. I might be able to arrange for a trustable party to be given access to the domain in order to review the WordPress revision history, but I will have to obtain permission from the composing group before that could happen. There are also some on-line security issues that must be addressed to protect other content not related to the APoJi proposal. Neither of those issues are insurmountable, but I personally view this document as being notable apart from its revision history because it involves an important current event and has been reviewed by people who are closely connected to the peace process. Collaboration can be confirmed by emails and forum transcripts, if need be, including dialogues from the official White House LinkedIn group. Imahd 03:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
G.O.III, I just wanted to mention that some of the interim revisions can be reviewed on the related Wikipedia entry where the complete text was posted before it was suggested by User:GeorgeLouis that it might be more appropriate to move it to Wikisource. That history reflects a number of major changes effected between Aug. 2nd and Aug. 7th. Thanks, Imahd 18:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I've nominated the Wikipedia article for deletion too. The document seems no more notable under their definition than under ours. Hesperian 00:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I respect your opinion, Hesperian. I've read through some of your contribs/ talks and have found you to be consistent and fair. No contest. Peace. Imahd 02:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the matter of electronic-only publishing, I believe that it would be dangerous to set a precedent for deleting works that have been published only by electronic means. What else would have to be removed using such a criterion? For the record, though, it is expected that a printed version of the proposal will be published before the end of this year. The exact date has not yet been established owing to the fluidity of the political situation and the prospect that the August 7, 2010, draft may be unfrozen for further editing. Best regards, Imahd 01:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

As and when it is published by a reputable publisher, I would be happy to see it on WS. Such publication would, I believe, confer adequate notability. My objection was only that I do not believe that it makes sense to host electronic-only items here.--Longfellow (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Should there not always be an accompaning djvu scan to verify the text? I thought that was the standard. Another editor (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I hope not. I've added quite a few works without djvus.--Longfellow (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
A lot of even notable electronic publishing is not durably archived; even such notable sites as Cory Doctorow's still come and go over time. Some of it may not be freely accessible; anything first published now but written sufficiently long ago may be PD but only available as a DRMed ebook. More and more publishing is going to ebooks, and I can see the day where Penguin Books takes a book they would have at one time only published in paperback and send it solely to ebook. The third or fourth largest publisher in the field of RPGs already publishes about half their material (by page count; much more by book count) originally and usually only as ebooks. I think we should include electronic-only publishing where it suits our mission statement.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
We aren't setting a precedent against electronic-only publishing. But it is still problematic in that it's a lot easier and cheaper than paper publication, and hence there's a real concern that they aren't peer-reviewed and checked to the level that a paper publication would be. In fact, you're making that point for me; you've electronically published even though you're not sure that you're ready to publish in paper.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I value the points you have all made. It has been decided by the composing group that posting the document to Wikipedia and Wikisource was a mistake and we apologise for any inconvenience caused. The matter will be revisited after the document is published in print (likely in December) and after suitable third-party reports are available to substantiate the notability of the work. Best regards, Imahd 20:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for your discussion on this matter. This dialogue has served to bring up an important issue regarding the document itself, which is that the August 7th draft must be considered to be a final product because it was placed in the public domain. The document revision cycle has now been permanently terminated and future revisions, if any, will be issued under a separate document name so as to differentiate between the document (as @ Aug.7, 2010) and any future iteration(s) proceeding from it. Imahd (talk) 21:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete Does not align with WS:WWI and in fact there would be components in that would rule it out specifically. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Pages from The New Student's Reference Work - blank[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted Un-needed category. Jeepday (talk) 13:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I've just tagged all of the pages in here as 'without text'. I'm not seeing any payoff in categorising blank pages by work. Hesperian 06:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • delete Totally agree, and looking at the work makes very thankful for having djvu files! Looks like a work that we should be looking to migrate to djvu, are the files available in that format? — billinghurst sDrewth 08:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Jeepday (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
A recent creation that forces an indent of a paragraph by adding spaces. As has been discussed in other places, it is crude and if paragraphs are to be indented then we should use CSS indent. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Other ways of accomplishing the same thing are available, this one is not preferable. --Eliyak T·C 01:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Delete, unused, unneeded. JeepdaySock (talk) 11:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Deleted.Jeepday (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Another non-English refugee that could not be hosted on en.Wikipedia so they figure moving the content here will somehow solve the issue. Sri Lankan song lyrics... — George Orwell III (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what we should do with this one, although certainly it has no place on the English WS. I would say send it to multilingual WS, there being no Sinhala WS, but I'm not sure of its copyright status. - Htonl (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete, no source, no licence. If the contributor can demonstrate that it is PD and a published source, then we can ask our colleagues at multiWS to give it a home. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

A survey of English literature, 1780-1880, Volume 2: Contents[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted page and listed work at Wikisource:Requested_texts#Unsorted. Jeepday (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
This is the only page we currently have of this 6 volume work. I suggest that it would be better to delete this page and add it to Requested Works so that we can host it (or at least Volumes 1 to 4, which appear to be pre-1923) in a complete manner. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:History of the macedonian nation[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted JeepdaySock (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Category:History of the macedonian nation is redundant; it is entirely duplicated by Category:History of Macedonia. The latter conforms to the standard naming scheme and has a few more works than the former. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
IMO call them duplicate and just do it. We have a naming pattern and the nominated category doesn't align. Billinghurst (talk)

ICD-10-PCS (2011)[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted Jeepday (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Currently seem unlikely the initial contributor (or anyone) will complete the work on this content. It is a less used work then ICD-10-CM (2010) so of much less value to the project. Jeepday (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
In the state that it is it would seem appropriate to send it on its way, and to me it seem we could say without prejudice and able to be undeleted upon request. Billinghurst (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Biblical Feasts[edit]

The following discussion is closed: G5: beyond scope or G1: no meaningful content
This orphaned page looks like the beginning of a self-authored work by the initial contributor. A Google search for the author turns up Facebook, LinkedIn etc. Adding the word "feasts" to the search gives no matches. I'm not sure if it meets the G5 or G1 criteria, so am bringing it here instead. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Eligible for speedy deletion, which can be done by adding {{sdelete}}; this is probably the best path when vandals/über-trolls appear to be involved. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 08:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)



The following discussion is closed: deprecated Billinghurst (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
With the advent of the parameter "portal" in our headers through use of {{plain sister}} this template is now redundant. Two uses that existed have been replaced. Billinghurst (talk) 04:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
So what will users use to link Portals on Category pages? — George Orwell III (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
They haven't been using it, though if it was felt necessary they can still use {{plain sister}}. If you prefer that we could convert the template so it subst: something that outputs <tt>{{plain sister|portal=Executive orders}}</tt>? Billinghurst (talk) 05:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Never mind. I see you've went ahead and removed not only every instance of Template:Portal but are in the process of removing Template:Portals as well -- so what's the point of raising the inevitable issues surounding the continued integration of the "Notes field" with the current Header template and it's eventual conversion to an all DIV based header as already in use on fr.WS again. — George Orwell III (talk) 06:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I said above in my leading statment that there had been two uses of this template, to note that they were both on disambiguation pages. If that is an issue, then I can return them to that state, it seemed uncontroversial, as a template that hadn't taken off.

With regard to Portals, and that parameter, I didn't see that the div conversion discussion was in anyway a hindrance or necessary to the change. The portal parameter sits inside {{plain sister}} and that can be shifted in or out of notes and placed wherever whether it is a table or a div, all I am doing is clumping them to the cluster of links. Again if that is problematic, I can reverted those changes. Billinghurst (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I said NEVER MIND. A proposal that is past of the point being proposed is MOOT, — George Orwell III (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Deprecated, and added an ambox to indicate the use of the relevant portal field within the relevant header template. Billinghurst (talk) 23:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Pyramus and Thisbe[edit]

The following discussion is closed: resolved, now lists versions
This work has existed as a 'wikisource translation' for some time, see history, initially created by a user in Jan. 2007 and modified or vandalised ever since.

This has recently been deleted/replaced with a published source, "page: update", so I'm noting it here. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 12:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)