Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2014-05

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 May 2014, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.


Author:Umar the Almohad[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Keep. Author identified.
After lots of searching on the Internet (and a few scholarly databases/books), I'm not able to find any information on this person to substantiate his existence. When I checked Wikipedia, he's not included in the List of Almohad caliphs nor in the list of people named Umar. Unless someone else has better luck, I'd like to suggest that we delete the page. Thanks! Tertiaryresources (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
This him? It looks he has the same ordinal position in Portal:Caliphs as that fellow does in the Wikipedia list. Prosody (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Well spotted! That looks like the most likely candidate, so I went ahead and connected the Wikidata item and removed the PROD tag. Thanks again for finding that! Tertiaryresources (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirects[edit]

The following discussion is closed: No consensus for delete. Jeepday (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Should these redirects be speedy deleted per Wikisource:Deletion_policy#Miscellaneous: Tales of Rabbi Nachman, Talk:Tales of Rabbi Nachman and similar?--Mpaa (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

They should be kept at least until all pages linking to them are updated to link to the new location. Also, when a page is moved, it takes some time for search engines to know that the page has moved. Further, in this case, according to Google there are existing mentions of the page on a few websites. The talk pages can probably be deleted, though. --Eliyak T·C 19:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Report of Col. David Jewett, February 1st, 1821[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Keep, no consenus for delete. Jeepday (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Report of Col. David Jewett, Commander of the privateer Heroina, to the Supreme Director of Buenos Aires, February 1st, 1821

Text is not verifiable. It is an old text but apparently it has never been published, and the editors involved in the transcription are not willing/able to upload a scan.


Regards, --Langus-TxT (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Leaning keep. Either scans or publication is a very literal reading of that policy. I think being in a national archive is closer to 'should be in your local public library' than 'I have the only copy and I can't let you see it but it's totally real, honest' on the spectrum of verifiability. I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia's policies to know what that means for its reference there though, that's for you guys to hash out. Prosody (talk) 05:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Keep, historical document. It is unfortunate that it is not verifiable, though that just comes to labelling, not disputing its existence nor the hosting of the text, though if there are concerns about the veracity, then we should tag its talk page. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

CIA World Fact Book[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Keep, convert to disambig page. Jeepday (talk) 11:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
This page should not be redirected to CIA World Fact Book, 2004. Instead, we should copy the latest edition to Wikisource.--GZWDer (talk) 13:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to have this be a disambig page to different years of the Fact Book? I.e., it could link to the 2005, 2006, 2007, etc., Fact Books.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Keep as disambig page.--Jusjih (talk) 04:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

There was a Young Lady of Dorking[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Keep, corrected to match original work. Jeepday (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
So far as I can tell it's an original poem based on one of Edward Lear's. Prosody (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
A poem by Lear does exist under that name, so I've replaced it with the original. —Clockery Fairfeld [t] 03:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


Command & Conquer Encyclopedia[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted as a clear copyvio per the user agreement at the parent website
This work is an encyclopedia for recent computer games. It seems as if it is a user-made work. Even if it were not, it would still likely be under copyright.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
It appears to be from On one hand, that could possibly count as published (I don't know how that website works). On the other, that page claims a copyright and I can't find a release anywhere. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Author:Participants in the Cape Town Meeting[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. The list of participants was merged as they were the original persons drafting then signing the Cape Town Open Education Declaration. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
This "author" is actually an incomplete list of individuals signing onto meeting participants and co-authors of the Cape Town Open Education Declaration. According to the Wikipedia article, "As of January 2014, over 2,400 individuals and 250 organisations have signed the declaration." The group does not appear to be an organisation per se, otherwise we could just move it from the Author space to the Portal space per Help:Author pages: "Contra-indications for creation of an Author page (when in doubt post to Proposed deletions): Where a work is the creation of an organization, use a Portal in place of an Author page." I suggest deleting the Author page since the Author namespace doesn't seem to apply as a good match for this purpose. But on the same token, I hate to lose the work that's been done on this page: Could we just move the list to the Wikipedia page as "notable signatories" or something? Thoughts? Tertiaryresources (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
An alternative to deleting the page could be moving it to a subpage of Cape Town Open Education Declaration itself, say, to Cape Town Open Education Declaration/Authors or similar. However, I'm not sure that that is allowed or not, so I'd suggest waiting for another opinion. —Clockery Fairfeld [t] 15:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Delete, this template has no valid usage Jeepday (talk) 10:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Seems to me to be quite a pointless template. If a proposed policy is under development, then it is labelled as such, but it is only proposed. This template is for policies, which we would not people just adding to. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Voting to delete and closing this template has no valid usage. Jeepday (talk) 10:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Delete, Jeepday (talk) 11:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Unused template, that is unused presumably because no one really likes blink. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I think its more a matter of the browser in use - most don't actually render the "blinking" by design. Leaning delete but it could be kept just as well to prevent re-creation or to further explain the browser's that accept the attribute, etc. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Author:Copyright Office[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete Jeepday (talk) 11:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
It only links to one page, which is in the Portal namespace.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
And? —SamB (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Possibly we should just convert it to a redirect for now. There are other copyright offices, so it is quite possible we will have works produced by one of these at some point in time. If and when that happens, we can change the redirect to a disambiguation page. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The Satanic Verses of Bhagavad-gita[edit]

The following discussion is closed: delete, Jeepday (talk) 11:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Apparently published only through self-publishing and archiving venues. Prosody (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Delete. Not an author. Jeepday (talk) 11:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
This is a prophet in the biblical book of Jeremiah. The person is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia or Wikidata based on my hunting, so I think it should be deleted from the Author space. Although a historic/historical figure from the Bible, I was unable to find any authored works. Tertiaryresources (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support I believe this shows a complete misunderstanding of the Author: workspace (as I perceive it) in WikiSource. Whether the author is "notable" or otherwise (as if that is even defined!) is entirely irrelevant in the W/S context. The author space is:
  1. A collection point of/for individuals determined to be potential authors (what else could a [false?] prophet be?)
  2. On opportunity to provide a source of cross-linkage between works which may be originated by (or refer to) an individual (presumed to be real; as opposed to fictional.)
  3. (Pre-supposing no work will ever be found demonstrates an extraordinarily prescient knowledge of archaeology. I wish I shared that amazing skill. Cattiness mode subsequently switched OFF.)
My 2¢. Kindly set me straight if I have misunderstood anything. AuFCL (talk) 00:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I, too, may be misunderstanding, so clarification from anyone is welcome. I was basing my request on the Help:Author pages section where it says, "Contra-indications for creation of an Author page (when in doubt post to Proposed deletions): Where a person is the subject of one or more works, but is not a creator of written work." I wasn't able to find any authored works by Hananiah. I suppose it's true that Hananiah's works may be discovered in the future through archaeology, but that could be true of any person who ever lived. And on the same vein, every living person is a potential author, so Wikisource's Author space could in theory be filled with everyone who has ever lived or is currently living. But again, I welcome clarification from other folks in the community since I don't deal with this topic enough to count myself as knowledgeable in this arena. Thanks for the feedback! Tertiaryresources (talk) 12:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete - not likely to have authored any works that en.WS can/will host. "Characters", even those considered of note, in a story or work do not warrant inclusion in the author namespace; must be a "true" author, editor, contributor or similar to be listed here. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Objection withdrawn per above. You do realise that this call is going to discourage tagging of potential "authors" mentioned in open text whilst proofreading? Personally I feel this is a retrograde move, but concede it is closer to the "transcribe without analysis" spirit. Sad. Red-links are not so hard to suppress. AuFCL (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Marijuana Control Legalization and Revenue Act of 2016[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, out of scope. Jeepday (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
A citizen initiative proposal in California in its very early stages. Probably doesn't quality for our inclusion criteria given that it seems to exist now as a self-published text only. Prosody (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Where should a proposal in its early stages be made available if it is in it's formative stage if not here? Ganjagreg (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Somewhere else. Wikisource doesn't host contemporary self-published documents, with the exception of pieces that have some historical interest. I don't think this would clear that bar yet. Prosody (talk) 05:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Can we copy and paste this proposed legislation that is an open source work in progress at wikibooks?Ganjagreg (talk) 08:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not super familiar with Wikibooks' policy but I don't think so. Look at Wikibooks:Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks?#What Wikibooks includes. Prosody (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:1864? births[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 04:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Does this category need to continue? Capt. Nemo blanked it out, and it appears to have been empty for some time. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Deleted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I am the uploader. I meant to upload to Wikimedia Commons and mistakenly uploaded it here. Can this file be deleted? Juxtap (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


School Song of New R. S. J. Public School[edit]

The following discussion is closed: discussion moved
There is no evidence that this is, in fact, in the public domain. It also doesn't appear to be significant enough to be included on Wikisource. --Jakob (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Moved to Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations#School_Song_of_New_R._S._J._Public_School significance is probably not an issue (see WS:WWI) but copyright is. Moved to correct location for discussion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)