Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2013-06

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 June 2013, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.

Kept[edit]

Wikisource:WikiProject CrankyLibrarian[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Keep, no consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
This proposal to imbibe the works from the CrankyLibrarian seems well past
  • no one to write bots
  • no one creating the author pages and disambiguating
  • not our preferred means to get works

To me it should just be let go, and about the only activity seems to be me disambiguating authors. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Please don’t delete this project, I hadn’t noticed it remained untouched, I will see what I can do. --Zyephyrus (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I tried this book to-night but I agree that copy-pasting small bits of text is a not very efficient way of feeding our library now. So I’ve kept a list of this project’s links here, with many thanks to them, but I will go on using our more modern tools when we can have them, and thank the tools makers :) . --Zyephyrus (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
@Zyephyrus, your last comment seems to say "I have saved the parts I like, go ahead and delete the project as antiquated" but I am not sure. Can you confirm what you agree with deleting the project? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 14:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I’ve hesitated a lot because it is difficult to salvage this library as is, and I don’t know yet which kind of tools we would need to salvage it; but letting it disappear (poof!) doesn’t seem to be a good solution either, because later if we have built marvellously wonderful tools some day, and have lost then the material, it would be a loss, wouldn’t it?—so perhaps we might have a place to store this kind of information, and let people know where it is, so when somebody comes with a capacity to build appropriate tools they can find the material intended to be kept. --Zyephyrus (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted does not mean gone, it only takes two clicks to restore a deleted work. When some one has the capacity to build tools to harvest PD works, there are bunch of sources available and CrankyLibrarian is not the only source. Is there a list someplace of all the places to find electronic versions of PD works? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 14:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
We do have Wikisource:Sources, is that what you are after?
YES!, great resource, did not know we had that. Jeepday (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • CrankyLibrarian has been added to Wikisource:Sources. Does this create any changes to opinions already presented? Jeepday (talk) 23:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The Life of Tolstoy/Chapter 18[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Kept. Whole work now completed.--Mpaa (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
A chapter of a work that has been transcluded. The chapter is incomplete, and the other chapters are not in place. I propose that the chapter be deleted until the pages are complete, and we have title pages to lead into the chapters. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I've fixed the "incomplete" issue. There was an adjustment made to the DjVu file after this transclusion was done. The user particularly focused on this chapter and then vanished. I suspect that there will be links to it from somewhere. Maybe check their home wiki. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
We should still have the top level page too, without it, this is sitting there orphaned. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The Tenant of Wildfell Hall (1920 John Murray edition)[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Kept.
This one is not so clear-cut. Here we have another copy-paste job from Project Gutenberg, based on the 1920 John Murray edition. I have now transcribed a scan of the emended 1st edition, but whether this copy-paste edition is thereby rendered redundant is highly debatable:

Tenant went through two editions in the author's lifetime. Then, shortly after her death, a publisher horribly mutilated the text in order to jam all three volumes into a single set of covers. And for the next 150 years, every published edition was based on that mutilated version. This copy-paste job is therefore an example of the mutilated text.

The thing is, the mutilated text may not be authoritative, but it is certainly highly notable, and it is surely a good thing for us to host both the first edition text and the mutilated text. The question is, is the fact that these are different notable editions sufficient grounds for us to retain the copy-paste job... or do we delete it on the basis that we now have a vastly superior edition backed by scans?

Hesperian 04:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like the two versions are sufficiently different (and notable) to be included per Wikisource:Versions, so pending a scan of the mutilated text keep both. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Keep per Jeepday's logic. Fixed the source link in the TextInfo template to point to working PG copy of the work as well. -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, happy with that. Hesperian 11:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The Screaming[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Keep, no consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I can't find a source for this title. The poem appears to be dreadful mis-translation of Different Threats. I would like to delete it. Hesperian 03:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed that it has an interwiki link to de:Das Schreyen. Hesperian 03:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
It certainly doesn't look like something of value including the point that it is short and appears to be extracted from something much longer. Certainly Johann Wolfgang von Goethe did better than that piece of "mis-translation". —Maury (talk) 04:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  • If it is proposed for deletion, can I encourage the work be labelled, and the contributor be contacted for their input. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Done


I have found that many of the poems in The Works of J. W. von Goethe have been abominably translated; e.g. The Pupil in Magic for "The Sorcerer's Apprentice". On reflection I am no longer certain that The Screaming is not the better translation of the two, which would suggest that perhaps it retains some value to our project. Hesperian 14:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


Deleted[edit]

Book of Common Prayer chapters[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, abandoned work without scans. No objections to recreation with scans. Jeepday (talk) 10:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
The following pages only have headers. Someone looking at Book of Common Prayer (ECUSA) has no way of knowing there is no content in these chapters without clicking on them. This project hasn't been worked on since 2007. I propose these be deleted. I hope it's alright that I just tagged the main page rather than each chapter page.

unsigned comment by Jfhutson (talk) .

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete having pages created with no content isn't helping anybody interested in the work. Support deletion. -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg DeleteAs per GOIII--Mpaa (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  • delete ^^^ (unless of course we have images available and they are linked, then header-only pages are pretty pointless — billinghurst sDrewth 12:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Note that the title page and about 5 sections remain, The 5 sections contain content were not specifically included in deletion discussion. Jeepday (talk) 11:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Institutes of the Christian Religion[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, abandoned work without scans. Jeepday (talk) 11:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Institutes of the Christian Religion has no source and almost no content. Institutes of the Christian Religion (1845) has a high quality djvu source and some progress has been made toward transcription. At the least Institutes of the Christian Religion should be moved to a disambiguated page (though I know not to what as there is no source) and a versions page should be made, but I think it would be best to delete. Also, Institutes of the Christian Religion (1845) should be moved to Institutes of the Christian Religion (1845)/Volume 1, as there are three volumes. --Jfhutson (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete There used to be something inside but has been brushed away by User:Tannertsf, who left WS. Abandoned and unsourced. No hope to be completed.--Mpaa (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • delete as no source, no progress; revisit if source file found — billinghurst sDrewth 14:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
This work is very similar to Cornerstones of Security (2011) by Thomas Graham, Jr., Thomas Graham and Damien J LaVera. (Google Books link).

I was initially going to send this to WS:PD because it had no source and looked like a Wikipedia article rather than a published work. However, when searching for a potential source to check, I found the Google Books page. The wording isn't exact but there are whole paragraphs that match. There are also other close matches on the internet. The closest appears to be dosfan.lib.uic.edu, followed by fas.org. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Dosfan. . . .edu is key - these are semi-official partnerships with-/archives of- the U.S. State Department. Sure enough - this is the opening part of a longer State Dept. document (HERE) concerning the INF treaty. So its not a copyvio but it is an excerpt of a larger work -- an electronically published Federal one -- which means a PDF to replace/finish what is already there is unlikely.
That said - it should be deleted for being a fraction of the entire publication anyway. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Ayurvedic industry overview[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Speedy G5
Ayurvedic industry overview doesn't seem to have any relevant content. It was created by an IP, there is no accompanying information. Possible candidate for speedy, but I'm new here so - not sure. Theo10011 (talk) 04:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Tagged for speedy per WS:CSD G5. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Pages in category "Index - Text Layer Requested"[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, no objections to recreation with quality scans.

The following 47 pages are in this category, out of 47 total.

B, F, G, N
P
P cont.
P cont.

OCR failure details

I've gone 12 rounds with all 47 source files for the above listed Indexes in hopes of embedding a text-layer for each by one way or another. Sadly, none of the source files are able to be processed by the free OCR routines out there for one of two reasons (if not both)....


  1. The original conversion from whatever type of parent file the work was originally secured in to DjVu collapsed all the layers (foreground, background & hidden) into a single layer. In short, this "confuses" the OCR engine by appearing to be a single image per page rather than dozens & dozens of black words (text-foreground) per page (colored background). Poor or outdated sourcing prevents the [re]processing of the original file into a workable DjVu at this point in time; and/or

  2. The original conversion from whatever type of parent file the work was originally secured in to DjVu was made with a DPI (dots per inch) setting too low (btwn ~72 thru ~151, even sometimes @ 200) for the free-online OCR services to be able to recognize any text characters at all. Poor or outdated sourcing prevents the [re]processing of the original file into a workable DjVu at this point in time as well.


Because these Indexes are based in what amounts to flawed source files as well as the fact most are 3-columns of text or more per page to begin with, the likelihood anybody is going to transcribe them by eye is remote. In addition, if any pages normally found under any of the listed Index: pages were to be created in their respective Page: namespaces, the content would come up as "blank" & the Bot maintenance script used to detect and mark such pages as either missing images or as without text would status all those pages as "without text" in error.

I propose the deletion of the listed Indexes (and any Pages that may have already been created under them) for the reasons given. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no issue with most of these nominated for deletion, and agree with the assessment, given the problems. However, is there no means of salvaging volume 2 of Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire? Deleting the Index would not solve any problem, and would leave a gap in this seven-volume work. I'd prefer to see someone locate a better copy and see if we can upload over the current problematic copy at Commons. If the DjVu file is replaced, then the Index can be kept and adjusted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah that one and the three on Nullification are a sore spot here too. You'd have to ask the mad scientist that took the original 150 DPI, 13M DjVu upload to a 600 DPI 86M Djvu overwrite on why a text-layer was not generated at that point in time as well. In 2009, the original DjVu with "tan" coloring from 2007 was overwritten [1] so the "good" parent PDF converted at the "bad" dpi to DjVu is gone (The current DjVu seems to have been re-generated from the "flattened" 2007 original PDF but I can't say that is for sure). The pointer to Google Books is still valid but starting around page 400, every other page is now clipped in half or worse. I'm open to solutions & working with others to resolve the issue rather than delete the Index: but the clock is still ticking until then. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Problem averted - I restored the original DjVu and now there is a (poor) text-layer generated by a DjVu created at 150 Dpi. If and when somebody wants to work the Index:, we can re-visit what to do about getting a higher Dpi and a superior text-layer at the same time then. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

As uploader of the Gazettes I do not object to them being deleted. I concede that proofing is not going to happen if OCR can't be provided. Hesperian 12:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep just because there is no next layer is no reason to delete. The images are at Commons, shouldn't be deleted and any person may want an article and come and to type it. PrP still works for validation. They are not taking up space, and they still have value. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
    Errr... maybe the nuances here have not been entirely digested (i.e. the title of this section Pages in category "Index - Text Layer Requested" for starters).

    I totally agree with the statement just because there is no next layer is no reason to delete and all the rest... Provided, the work(s) remain properly status-ed on their Index: pages to indicate that Proofreading may in fact begin.

    The issue here is either your next potential contributor has already come along and returned the status back to "Needs OCR" after PR'ing 2 or 3 pages the hard way from scratch -or- the maintenance script(s) have poked a Page creation or two under the Index:, detected no text-layer dump taking place in the edit box and automatically changed the status of the Index: to "Needs OCR" if wasn't set to that already.

    I've tried to get these files to OCR but there are structural flaws (basically the dpi's are too low) within the source files themselves that prevent the current day [free] OCR routines from properly recognizing any meaningful text (only chicken scratch if anything at all). Instead of continuing with the circular logic of "lets keep", followed by, "oh wait - they're bad", soon after, -or- running with the underhanded practice of generating phony, pasted or chicken scratched text-layers like I've seen done in a few instances to date, I brought the issue here to be resolved once and for all, one way or the other (not both).

    If you are willing to change all these Indexes: to "ready to proofread", make note of the inability of the current source files that these Indexes are generated from to produce workable text-layers, and then lock & monitor those Indexes so nobody changes the status levels back again - I'd have No problem with "keeping" them around for as long as it takes to fully proofread each & every single one of them.

    Otherwise, I see no justification to continue to keep playing grab-ass with the proofreading status levels - Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The Life of a Dying Mind[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, fails WS:WWI Jeepday (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Does self-publishing at Self-Publishing at Project Gutenberg comes within our remit for reproduction? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Please proceed with deletion of this article. After reading WS:WWI, I now realize that it was a mistake to add this article to wikisource. Sorry for the inconvenience. Adutta.np (talk) 06:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Adutta, thank you for your feedback, I agree your work does not meet WS:WWI and will likely be deleted. This does give us an opportunity to discuss self publishing at Project Gutenberg. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • In response to the general question "Does self-publishing at Self-Publishing at Project Gutenberg comes within our remit for reproduction?" I don’t believe that using Project Gutenberg as the vehicle to self publish has impact as far as WS:WWI is concerned. We are seeing an increasing number of non-scientific non-government works published in the public domain, the distinction between vanity press and independent publishing is growing very grey. We host works of fiction, anything that has been published with an expired copyright is considered appropriate for WS (i.e pre 1923), what about works of fiction (or opinion) that are published CC/PD in modern times?
    Vote Avoid like the plague. There is nothing grey about self-publishing. No editor = glorified blog post. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree that "No editor = glorified blog post", but "self-publishing ≠ No Editor". as an example this page claims " "Many of the classics were originally self-published including works by William Blake, James Joyce, William Morris, Walt Whitman, and Virginia Woolf" and goes on to list several self published works, that have sold over 100,000 copies. The self publishing of today is not the vanity press of yesteryear. Many authors are choosing to hire editors and, publish copyright protected for profit and are doing well at. The book Let's Get Digital: How To Self-Publish, And Why You Should goes into some detail, about the right way to go about and lists, many successful independent authors. Jeepday (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Medal Of Honor (United States) Digest[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, abandoned without scans. Jeepday (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
This work looks to have been abandoned. Last edited in or about 2009. There is no scan for anyone else to edit, and the work is barely started. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Early American poetry, 1800-1820[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, abandoned, no objections to recreation. Jeepday (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
This work has not been touched since 2011, it currently contains part of a preface only, and there is not scan links or other evidence of the source. I believe that it should be deleted, though with no prejudice to recreation. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
If anyone is interested in that work of Early American poetry I found it on Google Books and on Internet Archives Londonjackbooks often likes poetry. —Maury (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
No actual poetry afaict - just a listing of poetry from that period. Agree w/Billinghurst.... delete (also with no prejudice to recreation as long as the DjVu is uploaded as its new source). -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Muktigāthā mahāmānavācī: pūrṇayogī Aravinda: jīvana āṇi tattvajñāna.[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted G1
Muktigāthā mahāmānavācī: pūrṇayogī Aravinda: jīvana āṇi tattvajñāna. page only has a header and no other content. It was created by an IP. Theo10011 (talk) 04:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
This is a relatively new work, posted welcome message to IP talk page and request for validation they intent to work on something that will meet WS:WWI. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Follow-up even if this work is expected to meet our hosting requirements, the name contains ":" so would need a rename. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. And thanks for following up. Kind regards. Theo10011 (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


Other[edit]

Robert Louis Stevenson: a short biography[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Redirect. Jeepday (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Just noticed this after an IP edited it. As it is most of the EB1911 article (linked in header), is it needed in addition to that article? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the EB1911 article. As far as I can tell, it does indeed look like a copy of the article with just the last sentence removed. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)