Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2011-10

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


After action report for the M1A1 Abrams tank B-23[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Keep, full work is loaded as DjVu. Jeepday (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
We have a one page summary which one would think would come from one page of many as a summary of a report, which therefore doesn't seem to align with WS:WWI. The page doesn't standalone due to its detail and would seem to be deletion material. Also an underlying Page: ns page. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC) [Note: John created the page for another use from the original gif file]
Interesting. I wonder how many other excerpts with accompanying scans should go as well. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Seems to meet WS:WWI#Documentary_sources, and could well be used as a supporting reference for works outside of WS. I would like to see the entire source available, either in WS or direction to a physical site (Army Library, etc.). JeepdaySock (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
    If it was a complete document, then I would feel comfortable, however, it is not complete by its nature, and in that form it would seem to never be so. We are going to host incomplete poems? Last page of a book? If it is an official document, then it should have the evidence base associated with it. At this stage it is a standalone page with no supporting evidence, no source, etc. File:Summary for B-23.pngbillinghurst sDrewth 13:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The image gives no indication it is part of larger work. It could be a single page document, summarizing an event. As a single page work it is complete. Do you have anything indicating it is part of large body of work? JeepdaySock (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC) - FYI B-23 would be the tanks identification number, Bravo company, Second platoon, tank 3. JeepdaySock (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. Its transcluded from a scanned page. The fact that is says summary does not mean its an excerpt from a larger work or that it is incomplete in any way. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
    That it is transcluded from a scanned page neither makes it a published work nor a historical document, both of which have provenance and enable us to assess and demonstrate they are in the public domain. For me to see this maintained it should be constructed hierarchically as part of its document, and have source information.
The above is merly your perspective. In my opinion you are spliting hairs. It is historical enough for me (1st Gulf War, after action report explaining the one of the handful if not only tank related casualties + Work of the United States gov't). Still don't see why this work is a problem. Vote Keep -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Surely the easiest way is to simply ask the original uploader of the image (who is an active WikiHistorian) where he got it from? If he can't tell us, then we may have a problem, if he can, problem solved. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 02:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank You for that. Still, if we may have a problem, would it be something like the evil 20 year old Iraqi obscure history forgery bandit? -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. It would be nice to know what it is and where it came from, otherwise how can we be sure of it's provenance? You couldn't cite "a page of stuff I once saw on the Internet that looked like it came from the government", you'd at least need to know who published it, and preferably when and if it was part of a larger document. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 22:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Changed my mind due to availablity of scans. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
  • delete, of no use in its present state. cygnis insignis 15:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Unless someone is intending to transcribe this work, or an unobjectionable and complete section of the work. We don't host scans and uncorrected OCR, Commons is doing already that, the Page namespace supports the presentation of transcription here. They also facilitate the eventual creation of complete works, in that namespace, but should not justify littering main with quotes, samples, and excerpts. There is little evidence they encourage contributions, unlike a stub at the other place, a notion of 'eventualism' does not prevent the problems that emerge from ripping material from its context. If it is 'needed' at en.wp, the link could be to commons, better to give a link to its source. Editorial selection of text is problematic. So are incomplete works, they suck readers time and dilute the value of the site. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 22:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: this is the after action report for a tank that was destroyed in a friendly fire incident in February 1991. See File:Abrams-B23.jpg. It's also mentioned at w:History_of_the_M1_Abrams#Gulf_War. I can't find an actual source for the scan, however. —Spangineer (háblame) 01:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I generally consider an excerpt a piece from the middle, this is page 1 of 128, The complete work is available and PD. The last page is It is also used as a reference at(currently #18) at w:History_of_the_M1_Abrams#Gulf_War. while it is incomplete, it is a start on a complete work, where everything is available to complete it. Other then being only the first page of PD published work on a notable subject, where does this work fail WS:WWI? JeepdaySock (talk) 11:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
No, this is page 12. Hesperian 11:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
DjVu at File:Battle Damage Assesment - 1991-06-18.djvu (transcription project) Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep- thanks to all 128 pages made available in djvu above. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Minimanual Of The Urban Guerrilla[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Keep one, delete one; PD template was added {{GFDL}} [1] to one version ("of the"), Meets WS:WWI Delete other ("Of The") as redundant, create soft redirect on deleted version. Jeepday (talk) 12:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Proposing for deletion Minimanual Of The Urban Guerrilla and all its subpages, as redundant to Minimanual of the Urban Guerrilla (note case difference: "of the" v "Of The"). I almost speedied this, but there are a lot of subpages involved, it has been around a long time, and I'm not absolutely certain these don't represent two distinct notable versions; so I thought I'd throw it out to the community to decide. Hesperian 01:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
What of the lack of any copyright status for either version (circa 1969?) -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Only one of the works has source data, and that is the nominated version, and the source states

Written: June, 1969
Source: --- [Please note that we do NOT have an authoritative source of this document. This is the best we've been able to obtain, but it is by no means perfect. This document has various versions, and we do not have the expertise/resources to correctly identify the most accurate version of this work.]
Translated: ---
Transcription/Markup: Eri Yaynlar tarafndan dzenlenmitir/Brian Baggins
Copyleft: Marighella Internet Archive ( 2002. Permission is granted to copy and/or distribute this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.

billinghurst sDrewth 02:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete — Don't see how an unattributed [& dubious?] translation to English is somehow OK for continued hosting. -- George Orwell III (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • delete redundant — billinghurst sDrewth 02:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Parts of Treasure Island[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Kept & split into Treasure Island (1883) and Treasure Island (1911), both with scans available. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
We have a validated version of Treasure Island from that link, and it seems that it has capture a lead page that previously led to

and these are now orphaned. These straight textpages themselves with no provenance, and the replacement pages are from a source and are transcluded. Unless we can find the original source, then I believe that they should be deleted. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

  • The edition for suggested deletion has color photo plates while the other does not. The image File:TI-billy.jpg seems to indicate it is from a 1911 edition and presumably User:Sherurcij has a copy available. JeepdaySock (talk) 11:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I tracked down the source. It's from this edition at I vote for keeping these works, matching and splitting, and making it a proper source-backed work.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I checked the linked version at the Internet Archive and the illustrations don't match. The details of the book (illustrator, year etc) match the descriptions given for the illustrations but the illustrations in the book are not the same. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
However, this almost identical version does seem to have the right illustrations. I shall upload the file and split the book into two versions as suggested. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Lorem ipsum[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Keep, no consensus to delete Jeepday (talk) 09:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
From looking at the history of the work there was an early discussion about this page, though there is no link to the page to see where the discussion occurred. The work is Latin (of some variation) with no English translation and is described as somewhat resembling a work from Cicero. To me it would either seem that we would host a translation of the original work, and this should be at Latin Wikisource in some form. The existing work seems to serve little value as a library work, and nothing as a reference work for an encyclopaedia in its current form. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It isn't Latin. It is gibberish. The whole point of it is to be something devoid of meaning, so as to direct the "reader" away from the content and towards the typographic elements being illustrated. (This is not an argument for keeping it.) Hesperian 14:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it published gibberish? Otherwise I resemble that. I wonder whether that is a taken account name, surely it is. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete - scanning over the en.wp page, it only arose in the 1960s, so if it is part of a published work it would likely be under copyright. If this is just jibberish, in the sense of its intention, and differs from some type of published variety in that it would not be under copyright, yet still maintaining its intention of being jibberish, it would not be a published work. Either way, we should not have it on, or on any ws. - Theornamentalist (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
No strong opinion either way. I'm not sure if this counts as published but, according to Wikipedia, it has been used in published software. Of perhaps a little more importance, some variation was apparently published by Letraset in the 70s: "Today's popular version of lorem ipsum was first created for Aldus Corporation's first desktop publishing program Aldus PageMaker in the mid-1980s for the Apple Macintosh. Art director Laura Perry adapted older forms of the lorem text from typography samples - it was, for example, widely used in Letraset catalogs in the 1960s and 1970s. (Anecdotes suggest that the original use of the "Lorem ipsum" text was by Letraset, which was used for print layouts by advertising agencies as early as the 1970s.) The text was frequently used in PageMaker templates."— Excerpted from Lorem ipsum on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.. I very much doubt this could be copyrighted, it's based on an Ancient work, with little alteration and deliberately has no meaningful additional work done to it. That would make it published and widely used gibberish. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete Keep it is computer generated garbage, easily re-creatable How to insert sample text into a document in MS Word; Method 3: Use lorem(). Change to keep based on Cygnis insignis research below. Jeepday (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • According to the article traffic tool, the page is visited very frequently, ranking it at number 16. If that is accurate I imagine people are following the link from the article at en.wp and using it for the purposes outlined above. I had seen it before and don't think there is any harm in keeping it around. Moving it to another site is an option. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 12:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I nearly closed this as keep, or move (with a 'hard redirect' to 'oldwikisource' is my preference), but there is some unrefactored discord here. Pending any determination of CV, is there still any objection to hosting or moving this, perhaps with a clause that it sets no precedent? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's very useful to have this entire text in one place, and Wikisource is the most obvious Wikimedia project to host it. (Perhaps Old Wikisource rather than English Wikisource, though, since it isn't actually in any language.) I don't think it's copyrightable - it's a derivative work of a public-domain original, but it has no added creative value. I strongly doubt that the changes made to Cicero's original pass the threshold of originality required to make it copyrightable. Angr 16:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I actually was glad to see the entire passage. Perhaps this could be folded into the other pages that describe it.unsigned comment by (talk) .
  • Keep. I agree with Angr, including that it may be better in Multilingual Wikisource. Yann (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think that the problem is that there is not necessarily a definitive version; I could make up, just as does the generator, some alteration of the jibberish. How do we decide on which to use? It is popular enough, are we willing to become the authority on what form a "Lorem Ipsum" takes?

    Although a separate point to make, if it is unpublished, then why would we host it? I understand it is a high traffic page, and that it is very useful, but I don't know if that is in our project scope. If we are pursuing to use a published version, then the question of whether or not it is public domain comes into question due to it being based off of a PD text. I think that since it serves an entirely different purpose from its original intention, it may be copyrightable or something. I remember reading, regarding the fair use policy at en.wp, a case where an artist used Barbie dolls or something in an art piece. Mattell (sp?) sued because of the use of their dolls in his display, and lost. The court found his use of their product in the piece to be original or something. I can't check now, but I will later; I think this kind of thought may apply to Lorem Ipsum. - Theornamentalist (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

p.s. Which is'nt to say that Cicero is going to sue or anything, but rather that if the original's (A Barbie doll/text) initial function (to be played with/to be read) is different enough from its use in question (an art piece/used to focus on layout). - Theornamentalist (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment response, there are at least 2 definite versions that have been published long enough ago (45BC and 1500's) to be public domain by several centuries. There is also a 1914 translation for the version written by Cicero in 45 BC. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't mean the public domain type in its original form, I mean in its functional form as designed to be non-meaningful. How do we decide which form to host, as there does not appear to be definitive form? If there is a definitive form somewhere assumed to be published, is there enough creative merit in its function from the original that would prevent us from hosting it? - Theornamentalist (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure there is or could currently be a PD version that falls within WS criteria other then the original Cicero version and the "standard Lorem Ipsum passage, used since the 1500s". Either or both of them can be used for Wikipedia examples, so not sure we would need anything else anyway. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Move to Multilingual - I see there is a template {{Lorem ipsum}} which has the first half of the first paragraph. It's mostly used in template documentation and there's not reason why it can't be called multiple times if a longer piece of text is required. It is unlikely that the entire text would be required here. However, like others I wouldn't want to lose access to the complete version. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete - Templates, traffic, etc., notwithstanding, I see several issues with this text, most if not all being addressed above. (1) There is no definitive Lorem Ipsum text. Many of the generators use a different text or generate random words from a word bank. (2) The copyright status of this text is suspect -- while there are translations of Cicero dating before the cutoff, if I read the wp article correctly, this really isn't that. If we want to publish those texts, then do so by all means. (3) At a minimum, this needs to be moved to multi, since this obviously isn't English. (4) This may be a tenuous argument, but I would argue notability. In spite of its reknown in graphic design, it doesn't seem like a "source text" in the same manner as, for example, the King James Bible or the Declaration of Independence, or even something like Gulliver's Travels or Shakespeare's Sonnets. Braindrain0000 (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep - Right now we are one of the "definitive" sources; our text has been verified - or rather cross-checked - against many sources, and it does not hurt anyone of we have a slightly different version than any other similarly non-authoritative sources. On the other hand it would hurt not to host the text since it hasn't been included in the Wikipedia text just because it's on wikisource, and for such a text it's not prefarable to use an externally hosted link instead of a Wikimedia one. And I do not think notability of lorem ipsum could be questioned, it is widespread in space and time. --grin 00:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep - I aggree with grin, lorem ipsum is in terms of its usage very important and I would prefer to have this version always at my fingertips -- 19:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Angr's well-thought out rationale. As an intellectual property attorney, I am confident that no infringement claim could be made based on this content. BD2412 T 23:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

4 delete (3+request), 6 keep, 1 move. I suggest to close this now, keep it and let it be. Someone more regular here than me is preferred to do it. :-) --grin 08:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


Medicine, Magic and Religion[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted, Abandoned project. Delete no objects to recreation with scans. Jeepday (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Medicine, Magic and Religion old abandoned work, no scans, no content. Delete with no objection to recreation with scans. JeepdaySock (talk) 10:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
In some ways it is setting a stricter measure on our deletions, however, it is one that I see has validity when there is no specific source available and it is pretty well abandoned. Delete without prejudice. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

People's Songs Bulletin[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted, abandoned project. Delete no objects to recreation with scans. Jeepday (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
People's Songs Bulletin no content, no scans, abandoned project. Delete no objects to recreation with scans. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Deleted, No reason to copy to commons, no reason to keep here. Jeepday (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
This work has been identified as being able to be moved to Commons. I am not so sure as the cover art was "with permission" which would not necessarily carry over. The work is not used here, and it if is otherwise available, I would think that it could be tidied up and migrated. If it is not being worked upon here, I believe that we should delete it. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
The original page 2 (the standard release form found in most joint- or contracted-federal works) has been trimmed out. The cover image should not be an issue but removing the standard release form makes this not-worth-the trouble of moving imho. I'm voting
  • Delete
... in light of the less-than-optimal state of the current file. The complete PDF is available through DTIC in case it matters to someone & I've added that link to the File: page as well. -- George Orwell III (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The Monroe Doctrine[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted, and redirect to disambig Monroe Doctrine, edit message includes rational. Jeepday (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Excerpts from James Monroe's Seventh State of the Union Address. Hesperian 01:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete - an excerpt is an excerpt no matter how you slice it. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't know the work. If it is published in a form known as the Monroe Doctrine, separate from the actual address, then we can host it under that explanation and it is a separate version of the other work. If it simply a person's highlights it should be culled and redirected to the actual address. I lean towards converting it to a permanent redirect, and adding some commentary to the notes field to explain the redirect. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Redirect to the speech, or to the disambiguation page at Monroe Doctrine, which (rightly) doesn't list the speech? Hesperian 01:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Scratch that; it should, and will shortly. Hesperian 01:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete I didn't see the existing disambiguation page, and it wasn't indicated from the page itself. It is excerpts and should be redirect to the existing disambiguation/versions page(s) as appropriate. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

California Public Utilities Commission formal complaint forms[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted as not fitting Wikisource:What Wikisource includes.--Jusjih (talk) 11:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
This, as the title states, is a copy of the formal complaint form for the California Public Utilities Commission, with a preface that is a commentary by someone that the forms are almost impossible to get and their instructions on filling out the form. It seems to me that this is not exactly the type of material for Wikisource. - Illy (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
  • delete I would agree with that summation. It is a document, rather than a publication, and as such it doesn't particularly meet our implied criteria in WS:WWI for historical documents. If a form is needed, it would seem more appropriate that it be a scan uploaded to Commons. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Old unused images[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted, not need here and/or duplicated on commons Jeepday (talk) 09:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
There's little over a dozen files that are unused (have been for a while now), have no source, author or license. Some were nominated for a Commons move (I've swapped the {{Move to Wikimedia Commons}} tag for {{No license}}). I'd like to nominate them for deletion:

Krinkle (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

None of these images qualifies for a move to Commons as license, source etc. are missing. I agree that they should be deleted here as well. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment with the exception of the Examiner... files, the rest are not specifically worth retaining. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Why are the "Examiner..." worth keeping? Deleting the rest, no license, no reason to keep. Jeepday (talk) 12:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Sherurcij had an interesting quirk for uncovering historical documents, though he was not necessarily the best at the documentation. Looking at these, they would seem to fall into that space, and to me at this stage there is transcribable information within them, and they are a probable historic source, and in a fit of hopefulness I have added a note to Sherurcij's talk page. Whereas the others were non-historic, non-specific for enWS. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Searching for "the killing with squalling tires" Which is fairly clear segment in File:Examiner-letter-2.gif & File:Examiner-letter-2.jpg, Finds several references indicating to this apparent "Zodiac letter" [2] [3]. these works including the first page are on commons commons:Category:Zodiac_killer, so don't need to be here. If someone want to transcribe them and add to Zodiac Killer letters, they can do so from the commons images. Jeepday (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The Odyssey of Homer's proemic lines[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Page contents moved to sandbox/Wikipedia article; redirect page and empty page deleted. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Assemblage of 'samples'
This comment added later. Actually 'tis not a "collection" of samples in the plural, per se, but rather a single section of a much longer, inconic religious (well, once, anyway) and cultural foundational text: Which perhaps is similar, for example--although I'm not completely sure in this--to the early Modern English source text Prologue to the Aeneids, I wonder?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 14:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

subject for deletion? It's been subject for deletion for ages now. keep or not? unsigned comment by (talk) .

  • Not for main namespace as it is a construct. Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If they are all published works they should be split, if they are excerpts from other writings they should be deleted in favour of the main writings. There may be something for a portal, though if it is an academic comparison, then maybe it is a work for Wikiversity. I don't know enough, but it is definitely not main ns fodder. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
    • As I understand it, it is quite common to use the opening ("proemic") lines of large works as a proxy for translation comparisons. Pages like this one serve a real academic purpose. But it is not a work and does not belong in the English Wikisource main namespace. Hesperian 14:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
  • As Hesperian: Move to Portal:Odyssey. I can see a use in being able to quickly sample and compare the language used in different versions. That's more a navigational aid, however, rather than a real work, so not for the mainspace. (I'm not familiar enough with Wikiversity to comment on that; I don't know how they work.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. A distinct linguistic entity broadly understood as such. The "ten" Homeric lines of course are a well-known invocation of diety. Eg, compare with excerpts from various versions in "The Lord's Prayer"; admittedly there's comparatively more devotional literature out there associated w the Xtian text but there ARE tons of scholarly pieces addressing this Classical, proemic supplication to the Muse, as well. Homer's one of the most translated works in the world with more of these translations into English than any other language, and it would be the most useful, convenient, and most logical to combine these translations of this short text, IMHO.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 14:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
As Hesperian and AdamBMorgan: to build a Portal:Odyssey I think is a very good idea and this presentation seems to be a very precious tool for such a portal. --Zyephyrus (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
None of us are doubting the value of the work, we are commenting that Wikisource main namespace is not the appropriate place to site the work. If you refer to Wikisource:What Wikisource includes you will see our scope. The commentary also addresses that some of our sister sites may be more appropriate, though if they could not host it, then we would look at our Portal space to see what could be managed. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Arthur Seyss-Inquart[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Speedy Deleted by George Orwell III on 23 October 2011.
An excerpt from one part of a page of part of broader document that is part of the Nuremberg trials. While it has a level of importance and historical relevance, it is an excerpt and in that format does not belong at enWS. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Actions while Praying[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. This is a tiny part of one of four volumes of Sahih al-Bukhari or the Hadith of Bukhari. Although it may be public domain, there is no information on the source of the translation and the best known translation to English was published in 1959. It would really be wonderful to have a translation of this work and I will start looking but this tiny fragment isn't worth salvaging, particularly without some idea where it came from and a license. The logs for the page show that this was previously deleted by Psychless in 2008 by the way.--Doug.(talk contribs) 18:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Another work that is unsourced and would seem to be an excerpted part of a larger work. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Revised Code of Washington[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted Jeepday (talk) 10:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be the start of an idea, that didn't really progress. I know that we had a similar previously here (see archives) with regard to the United States Code (no consensus), I am not certain that the work is going to progress. Further, it does not seem to guarantee we can display the various forms of each set of rule, hence it will be a static display of dynamic situation. I have no issue with the laws being at Wikisource, however, they need to be cited, and put in their historical context. If the framework on that page is of benefit to Portal:Washington, then let it be used there. At this point, it looks to me it looks like delete. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment — Normally I'd be in favor of just moving something like this to the Portal: namespace if it had more than a page imported and with some relevent details needed for citation. Since it does not, I'm leaning Delete. — George Orwell III (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete, State laws are always evolving so keeping them current is a full time job. The best you could hope for in WS is snap shot in time. This work was left incomplete in 2007, it would be difficult or impossible to finish creating the 2007 snapshot now. Jeepday (talk) 10:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete unless we can find any way to keep current and historical versions. Chinese Wikisource considers current and historical versions of Chinese and Taiwanese laws equally important. When the laws change we add new versions and keep historical ones. If {{PD-EdictGov}} can be well used on Wikimedia Commons for US state laws and local ordinances, these state and local legal texts in PDFs can be uploaded there.--Jusjih (talk) 04:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Deleted.--Doug.(talk contribs) 18:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
we don't need it any more, interwikies are maintained by CandalBot; this template only adds redundant links (and some of them are even wrong). Candalua (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)