Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2013-08

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



The following discussion is closed: Closed. Delete request withdrawn per re-worked template(s). -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
This request also concerns {{cl-act-title}} and dependent templates.

Proposed for deletion because despite my best efforts I cannot get it to behave in a way that makes sense (see test cases), It has also been suggested that there are some fundamental logic failures in how this template works.

It would seem that doing side-titles in a reasonable way isn't easy to do in wikitext. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

OK , after a lot of 'calm down', Ive figured out what broke. It's to do with trying to put {{cl-act-title}}'s inside a paragraph. So I've reworked cl-act-section into {{cl-act-paragraph}} and updated the documentation to say it's only going to work for a single paragraph.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


Agnes Grey (unsourced edition)[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete
I am guessing this unsourced edition is a copy-paste job from Project Gutenberg, which would make it the unremarkable 1910 John Murray edition. I finished transcribing a first edition scan yesterday, and am now of the view that this unsourced version is redundant. Hesperian 04:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Concur, no reason to keep an unsourced version where sourced version is available. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Agree also. I'm keen to dispose of unsourced versions when we've got properly sourced ones. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Delete - no source = no host as far as I'm concerned too. -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks folks. I was tempted to speedy this, but wanted to check that was in line with community consensus. In future I will speedy in cases as straightforward as this one. Hesperian 02:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Fibrosis and related Concepts in Organ Diseases, Tumor Biology and Regenerative Medicine selected bibliography 2013 April[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted
I don't believe that this work meets WS:WWI#Reference material as it is a list of results from a PubMed search. Additionally, the quoted ISBN number doesn't exist on WorldCat, Google, or the Copyright Clearance Centre. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It is the humanized selection of the output of a pubmed search. Original output is 5200 items, selected are 965 items. This makes a human-made nephro-skewed bibliography. Its not the raw data !
  • It is simultaneously upped to creataspace and it will be on amazon in 5 days.
  • It will be mirrored to googlebooks soon; apperance lag is a few weeks. Worldcat depends on libraries holdings, which is zero of course. CCC - dont know, well I will have a spy on that.
  • It is definitively no textbook-like content which is collected at wikibooks.
  • ISBN is mine.

--Ossip Groth (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

--Ossip Groth (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikibooks could be a good place for it, provided there is an interpretive introduction. It is also possible to create a "List" on wikipedia; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists for examples of list articles on Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • migrated to enwiki , tagged Lists of publications in science. Let it stay in ws until survival on wp.

--Ossip Groth (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC) At enwiki. it caught an immediate It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern: Unencyclopedic content.If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. Although not required, you are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, do not replace it.The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for seven days, i.e., after 11:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC). --Ossip Groth (talk) 11:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment it was a terrible idea to transwiki this to Wikipedia as it is not an encyclopedic article. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • As proposed by someone else whith less terrible emotions on the subject...

--Ossip Groth (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not being emotional, but trying to look at content rationally. Indeed, I'm not the one getting blocked from Wikipedia for personal attacks. And furthermore, I note this is currently in the AFD process in Wikipedia and surly to be deleted per w:en:WP:SNOW. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • With no argument in mind, the universal answer is If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process. I AM NOT IN SNOWBALLING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--Ossip Groth (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

If it is going to survive at Wikipedia it would need to be a list, it is not an article. You have a couple of days for the AFD to run, read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists and see if you can convert it to a list that meets the simpler list criteria.
Also keep in mind that not having a home elsewhere does is not a rationale to keep on any wiki. Jeepday (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Everybody tells me to make a list of it, i did and cought a speedy immediately. The "discussion" there is inappropriate, whereas the leading discussants on wsource stay fair. Some later came over from the list's discussion to express their personal opinion here.

--Ossip Groth (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete, not within scope. Ossip Groth, I understand that you want to have it on a wiki, however, desire alone doesn't bring it into scope of WMF wikis. We are neither a bibliographic nor citation listing site. Good luck in your search for one. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: You could try looking into Wikiversity. It's the one wikiproject I don't actually understand personally but it does claim to include and facilitate collaborative research. I don't know if they would accept the data but it may be an option. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
In any case you will probably need to modify it meet requirements of the wiki, and expect that it will not stay the way you made it. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 18:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted as reference material.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 02:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Per Martin Tvengsberg[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted, out of scope. - Htonl (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I think this is out of scope here and wore suitable for WP instead.--Mpaa (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I say delete and move to WP [if possible]. I had noticed this page before, and considered marking it {{sdelete}}, but left it as it was. —Clockery Fairfield (talk·contribs) 14:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
The page w:Per Marin Tvengsberg does exist but is under discuison at w:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Per_Marin_Tvengsberg. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Also to note that Svedjebruk created both the WP article and the WS article. —Clockery Fairfield (talk·contribs) 16:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete: This is an approximate copy of the Wikipedia article (which I have cleaned up a little) with some parts from the talk page of Slash and burn (which also needed a little cleaning up). It's both out of scope and redundant to Wikipedia, assuming the biography survives AfD. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
It is also redundant to Author:Per Martin Tvengsberg which is in scope an appropriate for WS. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

See letter to Titus[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted; exact same text as Bible (American Standard)/Titus. - Htonl (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
This is just the Epistle to Titus (see Titus). I'm not sure if this was a mistake or if there is a genuine, separate work of some kind here (possibly the translation?). The title gives me the impression that this is due to a red link that literally said "See letter to Titus" but, if so, it has since been fixed because this page is an orphan. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete per my conversation with uploading editor at User talk:Harryjamespotter1980#Orphaned Bible verses. It looks like I missed this one, probably due its naming. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Journal at Geneva (including Ghost Stories) and on Return to England, 1816[edit]

The following discussion is closed: speedy deleted under G4. Index pages can be listed for speedy, best location for the template is the volume field Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Please delete this this djvu index. I made the file as an excerpt from this work, not knowing any better. I've moved the pages (111: now redirects that might or might not need deleting) to the new index, dealt with transclusion, linking etc. and listed the file for deletion at Commons.

I would list this as redundant under speedy deletion #4, but I'm not sure how/if the template should be added to an index file, nor if the redirects will need dealing with. Sorry about the mess! --xensyriaT 01:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Mishnah Seder Tehorot[edit]

The following discussion is closed: speedy deleted under G4. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Page has been replaced by Category:Mishnah Seder Tohorot. See discussion at W:Talk:Tohorot. --Sije (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Thought it was a speedy & deleted it... At any rate, as the original creator of the category, I agree that Tohorot is probably correct. --Eliyak T·C 19:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


Kedar Joshi's works[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Nothing to do here as works on Multi Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Following two pages should be deleted

per previous discussion at Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2013-02#Author:Kedar_Joshi. Dharmadhyaksha (talk) 07:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You should move/copy this to (multi-language-lingual-leftover wikisource) -- This is (the English language speaking wikisource). -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh is see! That's why i couldn't link those pages internally and had to use external links. So can you suggest how to get these deleted? Or what more needs to be done? Dharmadhyaksha (talk) 09:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
The process as to delete them has started, time will pass, to allow other comments that may change something (unlikely in this case). Also time will pass to allow the works to be moved to the correct language Wikisource. After a while, an admin will delete them and this discussion will be closed. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
As far as I can see, both are author pages, although one is in the main namespace instead of the author namespace. The Marathi page is in the Author namespace, but does not list any works. Does this author write in Hindi or Marathi? If it's Marathi, then maybe the work on the mulWS page could be moved to mrWS. The Hindi Wikipedia article listed on the mulWS page is currently on the AfD in the Hindi WP. —Clockery Fairfield (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry I am slow. The two works are on we are on This discussion is about works that are already on multi language Wikisource. They can not be deleted from English Wikisource and moved, because they are already there. If you go to the pages and click on the Wikisource:Proposed deletions Link notice it does not bring you to this page. Not closing the discussion, until everyone involved has had a chance to pull foot out of mouth or otherwise react. Jeepday (talk) 11:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh, great. How did we overlook this? I withdraw. :) —Clockery Fairfield (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Empty pages & Pages with no licence[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Many of these tasks are complete, there is a mix of outcomes. Remaining works for review are identified via Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:No_license is listed at Wikisource:Maintenance of the Month/Suggestions; that is a better approach to working through the remaining works. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Amir E. Aharoni posted this on Scriptorium:

I ran some analyses on a dump of the English Wikisource and found a bunch of pages that have no text in them:
These are mostly file description pages with no description, and what's worse - with no licenses. Where it is possible, they should be moved to Commons and properly licensed and where it isn't possible, they should be deleted. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Copied here as it applies to proposed deletions. I think some can be speedy deleted but others may need further discussion. Some will need to be moved to Commons. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

  • There's a lot of work to do here. I've taken a look at a few and so far most have reasonably obvious tags or are apparent user creations, though the users may be retired. Some are probably copyvios. I suggest we move the page to a subpage here and add line breaks between the individual items so we can discuss them and track progress. I think we should also dump the contents of Category:Works_with_no_license_template onto the subpage too and scrub for dups.--Doug.(talk contribs) 19:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:No_license contains nearly 450 pages.--Doug.(talk contribs) 17:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • It has been about a year since, we have had any progress on this. While each of these works is questionable, many just need to have the correct license attached, all require some level of research, and the approach used here, has not proven to be completely feasible. Unless there is object I will close this and archive the remaining results, on my next pass through. review of Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:No_license is listed at Wikisource:Maintenance of the Month/Suggestions, so the task should remain on the radar. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Pages with no licence

Archivers note:Archived from working sub page List of pages with no licence, separated into bullet points to facilitate individual responses. This page combines the contents of Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:No license and Category:Works with no license template as at 29 November 2011.








Translations with no licence

These cases have licences for the original work but not for the English translation.