Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2018

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 January 2018, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.

Chapters of The Man Who Knew Too Much[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Index:An Ainu–English–Japanese Dictionary.djvu[edit]

Hi there,

I uploaded this on Commons a few months ago. It was tagged as incomplete. I found a newer version that I uploaded on Commons and I'm working on the match and split phase here : Index:An Ainu-English-Japanese dictionary (including a grammar of the Ainu language).djvu. So Index:An Ainu–English–Japanese Dictionary.djvu is now redundant. Assassas77 (talk) 09:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done BD2412 T 22:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Previous revision of File:Astounding Science Fiction (1950-01).djvu[edit]

Contains copyright-renewed story from Isaac Asimov. Replaced scan has the pages removed. -Einstein95 (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

It's hosted on Commons, so a Commons admin needs to delete it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Constitution of the Principality of Sealand[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept, within scope —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I own a copy of the Constitution of Sealand, it is not what I saw in that article. I can't find precedent for deletion of articles that are inaccurate (weird), so I think we could debate that now. If someone was to prove they had copyright permissions, and possibly sourced it, they should start a new article rather than edit this one. Thank you all! MattLongCT (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
What is different about it? I haven't looked very closely, but it looks similar to the 1975 constitution on the Sealand website.—The copyright issue is an interesting one though. The Sealand website says "This documentation is free for personal use", which is insufficient for hosting on Wikisource, and I would be surprised if {{PD-EdictGov}} covered works from states not recognized by the US. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Beleg Tâl, that makes a bit of sense. Piecing it together, this is a copy of the constitution of the rebel government. This would be an accurate copy of the Sealand Constitution availble for 10$ (You buy them.). Generally, when people are referring to the "Principality of Sealand" it isn't this rather obscure group (who have been sort of inactive for years and are only known about if you look up Sealand's history). As the Micronation of Sealand is run by the owners of the [] website, having this hosted here as a portrayal of Sealand would just lead to confusion. Thanks! MattLongCT (talk) 00:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

NIST Koblitz Curves Parameters[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept, migrated to full work —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
It looks like this isn't even an excerpt from FIPS document but restated information. Prosody (talk) 07:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I've moved it to Digital Signature Standard (DSS) and added Index:Fips186-2-change1.pdf to back it —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I've updated links that previously pointed to the deleted page [1] --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Short_Titles_Act_1896 and subpages...[edit]

The following discussion is closed: withdrawn by submitter —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Deletion proposed as the approach used to generate this is for some reason a layout generation method that is apparently incompatible with the new parser. I'd rather focus on getting stuff that actually DOES work, then trying to maintain or update something that was largely experimental when originally transcluded.

That is unless someone is prepared to fully document how to do the layout for a document like this in a manner that works consistently in both Page namespace and when transcluded in sections, which are needed due to the size of the table(s) when transcluded.

It's a shame that a technical update will sadly mean the loss of something considerable effort was put into.

The actual underlying pages are probably okay to retain, and I had already simplified down the generation template with a view to having it subst en masse.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

What's actually wrong with it? It appears to work for me with normal transclusion: <pages index="Public General Statutes 1896.djvu" from=34 fromsection="59_Vict_14_Sch1_PreUnion" to=232 />. The problem I see is that the table is so long that it exceeds the Mediawiki software's configured limits, which is just how it is - 200 pages of dense tabulation is simply too long to be a single page. Why not just break it up artificially into sections? You could use the sessions by monarch, perhaps combining shorter ones to give manageable chunks. Say, "Edward III—Anne", "George I–George II", etc? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 14:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Which is the approach currently used... However the layout generation breaks because of how the new parser handles the {{nop}} in body needed to force a table row starting markup to a newline when rendering.. One the current parser this works. On the new parser because of changes in how HTML is cleaned up, the nop may be be moved outside of the generated table ( 'fostered content' error) which means the code it generates appears in the wrong place, causing incorrect rendering of some table rows regardless of them being templated or not. However, it is my understanding that a patch is being written for Mediwiki to address this situation. 22:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I missed the "next" link on that page, I thought that was it. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 01:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
How do you see it with a different parser? It doesn't look broken to me: which row are you concerned about? Linter errors are annoying but they're not breakage in my book. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 22:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough, you are welcome to try to get a consistent layout out of this then... and the other work noted below... However so far it seems impossible to have a version that renders both Page: s and the transclusion on a clean manner than matches up with the scans consistently. Rather than continuing to thrash back and forth with "clever-fixes" that only partially adress the issue, it's better to start again with an approach that is KNOWN to work consistently in the first place. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
But what is the inconsistency between Page and Main namespaces? If its just the linter error with {{nop}}, that affects every multi-page table at WS, it doesn't affect the work's presentation visually, and there's a software fix on the way. Why not wait for that fix to land and then worry about fixing any linter errors if there are any and/or bot out the nops if no longer needed? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 01:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Withdrawn ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
This photo has been hosted on Wikisource since 2006, and is used only on the uploader's userpage. The uploader has only ever made two edits on all Wikimedia projects - one to upload the photo and one to create the userpage. Even Commons accepts a small number of personal images for use by users who contribute in some way - is there any reason to keep this photo? It could have been moved to Commons but there is no license. Note: the file was unsuccessfully tagged for speedy deletion a few years ago. Green Giant (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Everything mitigates against keeping it for me. Not from someone who has edited outside their userspace, and it doesn't have a license, so let's delete it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The Flowers of Evil (1857) and The Flowers of Evil (1861)[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Merged and moved to Author:Charles Baudelaire/The Flowers of EvilBeleg Tâl (talk) 03:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Not actually versions or translations of The Flowers of Evil, but rather just a list of what poems were contained in each original French edition. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The lists could be merged and moved to a subpage of Author:Charles Baudelaire since they are lists of individual poems. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, or to a section of the author page itself Author:Charles BaudelaireBeleg Tâl (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I think it would be too long to place on the Author page itself. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Musical score[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Template designed to generate variable category names for musical scores. It generated categorization "by alphabet", which we do in all categories anyway; and also categorizes by author, which we do not do on Wikisource.

It is far easier to simply add the categories directly without the burden of the template than it would be to maintain a template like this with every possible variant category set to an ifeq check. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Is it supposed to be used in File namespace with scores stored as images? Or is it meant to be used with LilyPond/ABC digitised ones? Some template might be useful for both of the cases, but the current implementation does not look too useful indeed. --Base (talk) 16:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
No, the template is intended for use in the Main namespace to automatically generate structured category names, which makes it very limiting. The person who created the template comes from working on Wikipedia, and does not understand about backing scans on Commons or multiple namespaces. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I created this template for LilyPond/ABC digitised scores. Preambulist (talk) 08:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral. I see benefit to having an auto-categorization of music-by-year, music-by-country, and music-by-instrument. Is there any further reason to delete this template if the author-categories are removed and the template does not display any output in mainspace?—Or perhaps could some of these features be added to the header template? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Huh? It's only function right now is to generate category links according to a limited set and restricted category name structure. If the template displays no output, then it serves no function at all, and why would we keep it? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete It's not something I would use with LilyPond scores (and I do the vast majority of them here), because in most cases the score is contained within a work that we are hosting. The articles in DMM that contain a score are already categorised, as are the hymns in The Army and Navy Hymnal. "By year" is already available from the header template in the mainspace. "By country" is covered by the work containing the score. "By instrument" would be useful if we were intending to be a major score repository but, with only a few people doing any score work at all, this is somewhat moot. We are not going to be competing with IMSLP as a repository—who do the categorisation stuff well. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete as redundant. We would normally have author pages for composer and for lyricist, and for that we do not categorise by name, the year would be recorded in the header template per all works. Then we can just use the category parameter for header for the remainder. It sounds as the template is not suitably acquainted with existing templates and configuration. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Cl-act-paragraph and family[edit]

The following discussion is closed: withdrawn by nominator —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Nominating for deletion on the grounds that whilst entirely well intentioned, this set of templates is a mess, and as some recent editing has shown there seem to be some obscure whitespace interactions that limit the effectiveness of the template.

Having seen this family of templates described as "fantasy" templates elsewhere has convinced me this template family can't be salvaged in it's current form. It's time to delete (breaking a few works sadly) and ask someone else to write a properly specified and maintainable version of this that renders consistently, can be used across Page: boundaries, and can cope with block level elements, and is not dependent on precise whitespace handling...

Simmilar issues arise with {{Numbered div}} and it's related templates.

It's unfortunate that an issue like this has had to be forced in this way (Sigh) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Naturally any deletion as such can be stalled until there is a viable replacement. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
The template {{Cl-act-paragraph}} seems to work ok in the works it's already used in, so I'd be hesitant to remove it unless you have already created a better alternative that can be easily swapped in. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
The other concern is that some of it's functionality is 'broken' at present. Compare the output from vs User:ShakespeareFan00/Cl-act-paragraph/testcases&oldid=7220832. The output should be identical, there are also some unresolved issues with how it wraps some content. That's also partly why I have said at least twice it needed to be rewritten. Quite how the two different versions differ, is currently beyond me, indicating that my versions are simply too complex to maintain.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Having now attempted at least 4 TIMES to get this template's logic as intended, I'm having to throw in the towel on this because when I even attempt to change or repair the logic, somehow a comment or a bracket or some other bit of pedantically convoluted syntax breaks, continuing it at this point is pointless. It can't be salvaged in it's current from, and my patience with it has run out. Repair, Delete or Replace, but I've had enough of dealing with *&^%ing pedantic template markup and parser functions, needed, when even this was an attempt to get simplified down from the DIV based version used previously. That it even works currently is something of a miracle.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Fellows, I have(as was asked of me by the proposing for deletion user) re-written this family of templates inside my user space. Only the section number formatting handler, {{cl-act-heading/1}}, and {{cl-act-heading/2}} I have not rewritten(unless I've miss'd something).

current template
rewritten template

Any feedback will be appreciated. JustinCB (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Withdrawn - The current version has been stabilised sufficiently, until the new templates can be swaped in. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Index:Chapter 4, pp. 48-57 (1890 ed.).pdf[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted per previous discussion —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
This has been tagged for deletion though not brought here for discussion. Closing the loop, not fully knowing the work. Presumably the underlying file and other pages are impacted.

First guess is that it is a chapter of a work, so incomplete. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I forget why I didn't delete it when we discussed it last time, but I've deleted it now. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Turpie Dog[edit]

The following discussion is closed: moved to userspace, possibly can import to Wikibooks from there —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Originally added with no header, no source, and no license. The text now appears to be an "original" work of the contributor with no published source text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
It's a folktale that(as far as I know) has not been published. Does it belong somewhere else? JustinCB (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
If it's never been published, it doesn't belong here. It sounds like you'll want to look up self-publishing sites, since Wikimedia doesn't really cater to that market. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
I didn't write it, it's a folktale. I might've put it to paper(or bits, as the case may be), but I reckon it's been told since the Skags(the family of the first two white men in Tennesee[they were brothers, long hunters]) were still in Scotland. JustinCB (talk) 02:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
But the words you used are your own; you wrote this edition. On Wikisource, we don't create original editions. If the folktale is an oral tradition, that's great, but we need a published edition (in PD) in order to host a copy here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
There was some earlier talk about oral tradition at a wiki, and the Wikisources, nor the sister wikis chose to not expand their scopes. I personally see that it is aligned with Wikibooks, though I am not sure that they do. At this point it is a hole in the market, though not one filled by Wikisource. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Can you see if the wikibooks people want it, and if it can be sent there? JustinCB (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
@JustinCB: feel free to ask them yourself, at b:Wikibooks:Reading room/GeneralBeleg Tâl (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
I have asked at b:Wikibooks:Requests for import.--Jusjih (talk) 03:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
@JustinCB: Imho it is in something of a grey area, relative to Wikibooks. You might be able to help with either of two questions I have asked, to help clarify the situation, at b:Wikibooks:RFI#Import from Wikisource (indeed, I see some hints above toward the first question). --Pi zero (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Searching Turpie Dog on the web gets too few results, so I cannot help save the work. Maybe move to user's subpage?--Jusjih (talk) 02:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
If that were needed as a temporary measure, perhaps it could be done — if there were a long-term exit strategy to get it out of userspace. --Pi zero (talk) 02:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Please don't delete it until there's a place found for it(you can move it to my userspace, though) JustinCB (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm moving it to User:JustinCB/Turpie Dog. It can stay there until you are able to find a way to set it up at Wikibooks or elsewhere. In the meantime I will redirect Turpie Dog to More English Fairy Tales/The Hobyahs. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

We actually have a sourced version of this story, though the telling is rather different, at More English Fairy Tales/The Hobyahs. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: deleted 2x license tags and 1x work tagged accordingly —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Non-commercial restriction makes it incompatible with Wikisource's CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. Prosody (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
It wouldn't be applicable to us anyway; it's not the type of thing that would be relevant in a case in a US court. Definitely delete.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
The work to which it is attached also needs a check. Not sufficient information at the moment for any sort of judgement. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
It appears that the noncommercial clause was added to DPRK law in 2006, after the 1996 URAA cutoff, so Aegukka (1945) should still be hostable as {{PD-1996}}. It appears to still be under copyright in source country. See relevant discussions: w:Talk:Aegukka#Copyright status of Aegukka, w:Talk:Aegukka#Copyright status updated, Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-DPRKGov, Commons:Deletion requests/File:The National Anthem of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (Converted MIDI).ogg. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how the noncommercial clause is relevant. It doesn't affect whether or not the work is copyrighted, so it would have no effect in US law.
Also, the URAA date for North Korea would be in 2003, because that's when North Korea first signed the Berne Convention, the first copyright treaty they had with the US. 1996 is only for countries that had signed the Berne Convention or the WTO at that point. Afghanistan, for example, has a URAA date in 2016.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Hm, I think I see what you're getting at. If the work was PD in the PDRK in 2003 (URAA date) then it's PD in the US currently. If the work was copyrighted but permission given to use and distribute the work for any purpose, then in 2006 that permission was restricted to noncommercial use only—then the work is copyrighted in the USA, and if we are bound to follow what is essentially a relicensing in 2006, then the work needs to be deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete along with Aegukka. The works in question are not public domain, but rather copyrighted and freely usable, which means the URAA would not have applied and the non-commercial clause is still in effect. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment doesn't {{PD-KP}} also have this problem? It also provides an exemption only for non-commercial uses. BethNaught (talk) 10:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:Politics of the United States/Carl Schurz[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted by Beleg Tâl. BethNaught (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
And its subcategories. More categorization by author, which is superfluous to listings at Author:Carl Schurz. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg KeepQuestion Question. For the reasons on my talk page. There are a LOT of articles related to Carl Schurz and the category becomes hard to navigate without. If this subcategory is deleted, I recommend an improved sorting of the parent category to improve readability. Would this be possible? Are there alternatives that should be looked at?MattLongCT (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Keep. . . why? Why should this topic be subcategorized by author? Why should two different methods of categorizing be mixed? What reason for changing the established practise do you offer?
As for sorting: Some of them are about race relations; some are about the "Indian Problem", and those would be separate categories in which to place the items, according to the specific topics addressed. Quite a few of these items are not about US politics, and don't belong in that category. The Letters and Addresses would appear in those categories. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per nom. Green Giant (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I think perhaps this should be clarified(what is and isn't included), possibly renamed, and made a subcatergory of the authour page. JustinCB (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete @JustinCB, @MattLongCT: Firstly we don't make "category subpages", categories should just be categories—they stack within a hierarchy. So the process used is problematic.

Secondly re listing on author pages. After trials in the early days the community determined that it is our preference to not categorise works by an author, instead we manually curate works as the detail was needed. It also led to a lot of ugly categories. There is a range of scope available to deal with listings through author subpages.

We do also have mw:Extension:Extension:DynamicPageList (Wikimedia) installed were you to want to undertake intersects of categories. If you are looking for a working example, please see something like Portal:1903. We do under utilise the tool. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't really mean "subcategory", but subpage, that is, the content of the page should be clarified what is and isn't part of it, & those pages that aren't should be moved somewhere else on the author page or a subpage thereof, and the others moved to another subpage of the author's page. So Author:Carl Schurz/Political Writings or something like that & Author:Carl Schurz/Race Relations or Author:Carl Schurz/Writings Related to but not Politics or something like that if there are too many for to be listed legibly on his Author page alone. JustinCB (talk) 12:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
@JustinCB: We give flexibility in that regard to intelligent decision making where the production suits a page output. There are a variety of appraoches. have a look at some of the American president pages/subpages. Or have a look at what Londonjackbooks has done with Author:Florence Earle Coates and special:PrefixIndex/Author:Florence Earle Coatesbillinghurst sDrewth 12:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --BethNaught (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Chronological Table and Index of the Statutes[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept; no consensus for deletion
Same problem as above namely, an experimental layout that refuses to behave nicely when trying to tag match it so it behaves consistently.

Delete and let's start again with ONE approach that works consistently in ALL namespaces. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a work with a scan back. I'd need a lot more reason to delete than a desire to standardize a layout approach. The best place for such a discussion is Index talk:Chronological Table and Index of the Statutes.djvu. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --BethNaught (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:Framed page[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept, in use
Used to mark that a page has a frame, which isn't necessarily relevant to text transcription or web presentation. Could easily be automatically removed from tagged Pages: and deleted.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep While some editors will skip some framing elements (and other typographic ornaments), there is no consensus that these elements are irrelevant—and sometimes they are definitely relevant (Example 1, Example 2). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --BethNaught (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Index talk:Darbar-e-Akbari WDL9691.pdf & Index:Darbar-e-Akbari WDL9691.pdf[edit]

The following discussion is closed: speedy deleted, as author's request
Not English, Author Requested, etc.

MattLongCT (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --BethNaught (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: withdrawn
Delete per WS:CSD#G1 as an obvious test page.MattLongCT (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep This is used to test changes to the proofreadpage. It is deliberately there. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Withdrawn MattLongCT (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --BethNaught (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Recollections of Homo sapiens 호모사피엔스의 기억[edit]

The following discussion is closed: out of scope, deleted
This is a poem by a Korean church minister, that has been translated to English, with both original and translation licence saying {{PD-release}} though there is no source, nor evidence of release. There is not even the indication that the work is published. To be retained we will need the evidence that it is published, and OTRS for both the Korean language and English language versions.

Korean Wikisource only has works the author signed, not wrote; see [2]. If this is a wiki translation, we should be working from a page on, as I believe was generally agreed upon. If the English translation was a published work, one appropriate OTRS should do.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
There is also this poem: The six tailbone of the Cenozoic era 신생대의 여섯 번째 꼬리뼈Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete as unattributed translation. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Also note that the author page and the redirect for the author page would seem to be affected if the work is deleted. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --BethNaught (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Index:History of Willamette Railroad.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed: speedy deletion, redundant — billinghurst sDrewth 22:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
This index was created to support Oregon Historical Quarterly/Volume 20/History of the narrow gauge railroad in the Willamette Valley. At the time, I did not realize there was a full scan of the journal's entire volume available: Index:Oregon Historical Quarterly vol. 20.pdf

I have moved all the pages to the full volume, and this index is now redundant. I think it's pretty straightforward decision to delete the index and the pages/redirects here. Whether or not I should propose the supporting file for deletion at Commons, I'm less sure...I'd appreciate guidance on that. -Pete (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I would support deleting the file at Commons too, unless you can see a purpose for retention. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --BethNaught (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:John Brown (abolitionist)[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted
Wikisource does not support Author-based categories. However, I am opening a discussion in case someone is willing to set up a Portal prior to deletion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
They can all be listed on the author page, no need for a portal. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Some of the articles are not written by Brown nor actually about him per se, but about the Harper's Ferry Event. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Portal for Harper's Ferry event? (whatever it is?) Or a category for that, if it makes sense to have a loose cat. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg DeleteBeleg Tâl (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --BethNaught (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Tomino's Hell[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted --BethNaught (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Uncertain sourcing; no evidence that the English version is published
  • No translator, and the copyright declaration is dubious
  • if it is a current "free" translation, then the work belongs in the Translation: ns
  • the Japanese/English is out of scope.

We need to manage these works of uncertain origin that are popping up, and from IP addresses where you cannot follow-up. Having to chase down the uploader is time-consuming and having to bring each here, one by one, and repeat the explanation is similarly problematic. We may wish to draft some guidance for foreign language works like these, and allow them to be speedy-deleted, though mindfully pointed to our explanatory text, and not preventing reintroduction when demonstrably within scope. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete: it's a common copypasta, so the translator is probably impossible to identify, and the work is extremely unlikely to have been explicitly released under a free licence or dedicated to the public domain. "No original authorship" doesn't make sense in this context. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I can't confirm the publication year; there's a w:Inuhiko Yomota ("Yomota Inuhiko" Japanese-style, as per our author) who was born in 1953. I'm not even sure the underlying work is PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
The Japanese poem appears to be from the collection Sakin (1919) by Saijo Yaso, so it's PD in the USA though not in Japan until 2020 (1970+50). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Our version, and the story floating around the net, attaches the author name Yomota Inuhiko to it and an earlier publication than Sakin. Given the way it's copy and pasted, and any details added to juice the story instead for factual support, I just don't feel comfortable with even that. Otherwise, we should move the Japanese to (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --BethNaught (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Days of War, Nights of Love[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted, self-published so out of scope
An incomplete work that has been for 10 years. The source link is dead (talk page), if it even ever contained the work, and there is no free copy available on the website. There has to be a point where we pull the pin on an abandoned work. If it is ever text supported, or there is evidence that the text is available for reproduction, then we can undelete and reproduce. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Noting that files with the names are contained

if we believe that these works are public domain they then need information template added, and moved to Commons; otherwise deleted. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Scan available here. That being said, it appears to be self-published and is probably out of scope. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --BethNaught (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:Reed Anthony, Cowman[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted
The category Category:Reed Anthony, Cowman contains only the chapters of that novel. Could someone with a bot de-categorize all the chapters so that this book-category can be deleted. Note that the items are chapters of a novel, not short stories. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
removing cats, and fixed all the headers of the work to current standard — billinghurst sDrewth 11:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --BethNaught (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The Struggle This Time Is For Independence[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted: per nomination. BethNaught (talk) 12:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Translation lacks license. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Already had to delete this once. Mahir256 (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --BethNaught (talk) 12:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Statute table templates..[edit]

I.e {{Statute table}} and various related linked sub-pages thereof, as well as page content which makes use of them.

These are proposed for deletion on the basis that they have become too complicated to be reasonably maintained or expanded upon. Nor can they be cleanly substed to improve performance. Only 2 works affected, both of which I contributed extensively (see relevant thread previously), and which I have no problems in also being deleted, given that the current level of complexity in how they are coded. These templates are also not necessarily compatible with the parser migration (and the replacement parser), and for these reasons it would be easier to start afresh with a "clean" version that's properly specified (and gives a consistent rendering across multiple namespaces), rather than having a number of pages break suddenly.

Despite the valid comments made elsewhere about retaining "broken layouts", In this instance I feel that starting again with a fresh approach would be the best course of action, given that it's unreasonable to expect overly complex templates to be supported.

Alternatively, if someone is prepared to loose their sanity trying to figure out all the interactions, I would have no objections to the template being simplified so it can be subst cleanly.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Withdrawn per a previous decision about in-use templates.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 23:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The Saint[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept, source added —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
A work started in 2008, and we have 2 chapters, and an introduction from 9 parts. There is no source of the text, and its formatting is well below par. Work is 1905, by Antonio Fogazzaro, translated by Thomas Roscoe Thayer. If someone wishes to find a scan and work from there, without that happening it is my opinion that it is not worth retaining as it isn't going to progress. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
On comparison, the text is clearly copied from Gutenberg. Translator attribution is suspect, as the original publication cites Mary Prichard-Agnetti as the translator. Many scans available. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Added a scan and started the transcription. I've match-and-split the existing chapters and am currently fixing the formatting. I'll leave it at that if anyone wants to take over. -Einstein95 (talk) 03:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst, @Beleg Tâl: Index:The Saint (1906, G. P. Putnam's Sons).djvu has been added and has replaced the existing two chapters, I'm not doing anything further. I propose we can remove the {{delete}} tag. -Einstein95 (talk) 10:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Principles of Political Economy[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept, scan provided —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
:Note: the work in question is now located at Principles of Political Economy (Malthus). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

This page has an inadequate amount of content to be kept.Mr. Guye 01:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The page was just started, and it's actively growing. So there's no reason to delete at this time. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Scan of 2nd ed: Hrishikes (talk) 01:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
We should definitely be working to a scan for such a renowned work. Little value in bringing in a text only, we may as well just link to one. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
The author page has links to scans for the 2nd edition and for the 1st US edition, but not for the original UK edition. If someone does locate a scan, we can do a match-and-split. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
We should not do a match and split for such works. It has long been discussed and proposed that without edition data that match and split is problematic, and the community at those earlier times had a tacit agreement to abide by that point of view. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I suppose this is about Principles_of_Political_Economy_(Malthus) ? --Dick Bos (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes it is. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The 1st UK edition is here, but the TOC on our version does not match the pagination of that edition; it matches the pagination of the 2nd edition that Hrishikes listed above. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Having confirmed that the text is copied from the OCR of the second edition, I've imported a scan and begun match and split. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump's First State of the Union Address[edit]

The following discussion is closed: no action taken, per discussion at ScriptoriumBeleg Tâl (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Please delete this page and move Donald Trump's Address to a Joint Session of Congress here so it can match the style of other Presidents. Dash9Z (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
not done at this time. There is a separate discussion about this whole set of works with a similar name and they need to be look at holistically, not on an individual basis. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump's Second State of the Union Address[edit]

The following discussion is closed: no action taken, per discussion at ScriptoriumBeleg Tâl (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Please delete this page to allow Donald Trump's State of the Union Address 2018 to be moved back to Donald Trump's Second State of the Union Address so it can match the style of other Presidents. Dash9Z (talk) 04:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
not done at this time, see above. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Brahma purana[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted --BethNaught (talk) 09:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
This has lain around for 10 years without a source, or even a header. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Sources are listed at Talk:PuranasBeleg Tâl (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Which one is this? If it is one of those, please say so. If it is none of these, then links do not help. Right now we have an unsourced copy and no means to assess its completeness, accuracy, or license. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
The source is copied from the reference given at the bottom.[3] The archives book quoted in the Talk:Puranas appears to be different in content.[4]--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 05:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete no translator, no evidence that the translation is in the public domain. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete, did a bit of searching, looks like translation might be as old as the 1980s, but certainly not PD. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: BethNaught (talk) 09:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The Prophecy of Joyo Boyo[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted, no evidence that translation is freely licensed
no source, no evidence of published work, nor that even in the public domain for translation. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I suspect it's a user translation. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Pulchrism: Championing Beauty as the Purpose of Art[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept: no consensus to delete, and author confirms that work meets criteria of WS:WWIBeleg Tâl (talk) 03:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Self-published text whose goal seems to be to promote the manifesto of a single non-notable artist. The text is pubished by Carpophage press, which according to a respected editor is Waugh's own press. Be aware that the author's pages were all deleted and salted at Wikipedia (e.g. Jesse Waugh, Jesse R. Waugh and Jesse Waugh (artist)), with instances of sockpuppeting in the discussion. Discussion of Pulchrism at wiktionary involved three sockpuppets that were blocked. 02:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete WS:WWI says "These as well as any artistic works must have been published in a medium that includes peer review or editorial controls; this excludes self-publication." It's pretty clear this is a self-published volume and is therefore out of scope.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep not a reason for deletion. Slowking4SvG's revenge 10:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. Non-notability, self-promotion, and banning from Wikipedia are all irrelevant to this discussion. The only question is whether it fails WS:WWI. Considering that Waugh has set up a discrete publishing entity ("Carpophage Press") and that this work has a physical print run, I am inclined to consider it sufficiently borderline that we should keep it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think self-promotion is irrelevant. It's part of what we're getting at in WS:WWI; if we were talking a self-published book of poems that a user bought the rights to from the heirs after the author died, that's a more interesting work than something the author really wants everyone to see. Just as importantly, we might not think of notability in the exact same way that Wikipedia does, but if an author is notable, then marginal stuff by them is more likely to provoke interest than better stuff by unknowns.
Also, this is more controversial, but I think banning from other Wikimedia pages should be at least a little important. At a certain point, letting a self-promoter keep pushing every Wikimedia project independently is unhelpful, especially if they try to use that as leverage to reopen fights on projects that have already rejected them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: I was thinking of self-promotion differently than self-publication, and I think self-promotion is completely irrelevant. If the work is itself in scope (published, licensed, etc), then the author should be more than welcome to add the workto Wikisource, improve the transcription, add to their own author page, promote the work's featured status if it might meet featured criteria, and any other action normally done on Wikisource, even if the only reason they are doing so is to promote themselves and increase visibility to their work. These actions on the part of the author improve Wikisource considerably. However, I agree that the work itself must first pass our criteria for inclusion, which would (among other things) disallow using Wikisource as the only third-party platform for self-promotion. If you can get your freely licensed writings published, please feel free to add them to Wikisource!——With regard to the second point, there are two facets to this. If a Wikimedia user is banned at Wikipedia, then we may want to consider restrictions to the user at Wikisource. However, if a work is not within scope for an article on Wikipedia, this has no bearing on whether it is within scope for hosting on Wikisource. Similarly, if a user is banned on Wikimedia, but they are the author of a work which is within scope for hosting on Wikisource, then their ban should have no bearing on whether the work should be hosted here.——When I spoke of irrelevance, I intended to separate the suitability of the work for inclusion, from the behaviour of the author on Wikimedia after publication. Since the author's behaviour does not change the suitability of the work for inclusion, I consider it irrelevant to this discussion concerning the work's suitability for inclusion. I think that you and I are in agreement otherwise :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't necessarily agree. My personal opinion is that almost all freely licensed writing that's proposed for Wikisource is junk, never the quality or importance of the majority of the PD stuff we work on, and occasionally the quality of some of the PD stuff an editor with a particular niche interest might pull from the archives and upload. (The main exception I'd argue is manuals for open source material, which at least fairly frequently hit my particular niche interest, but we tend to exclude.) When marginal, I think the value to the community of stopping self-promoters on Wikimedia exceeds any value of Wikisource hosting the work.
I think self promoters promoting their work's featured status is hugely problematic; I think it runs the risk of overloading and distorting a system run by a small handful of editors. A lot of Wikiprocesses, especially on relatively small Wikis, can quickly be overloaded by a couple of self promoters, especially with meatpuppets.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Per Prosfilaes, the relevant test is "published in a medium that includes peer review or editorial controls; this excludes self-publication", so this discussion hinges on whether the book is so published.
Beleg Tâl's remark that the work has had a physical print run is not relevant to the question of self-publication: for example, print-on-demand is very definitely a thing, and according to the Wikipedia article, in POD "Other services may also be available, including formatting, proofreading, and editing", but "POD publishing gives authors editorial independence", i.e. there is not editorial control. This is an academic question, since Waugh is printing as "Carpophage Press", but it shows that physical publication is not relevant.
Therefore, the question is whether "Carpophage Press" provides "peer review" or exerts "editorial control". Beleg Tâl says that it is discrete from Waugh, but if it is just a label run by and for Waugh, it's just self-publishing with a fancy name. Note that Waugh's LinkedIn profile lists all his publications under Carpophage Press. Moreover OpenLibrary and WorldCat only have one result for Carpophage Press, a book by Waugh. "Pulchrism" doesn't show up in the LoC. I find it extremely unlikely that Carpophage is anything other than a vanity press run by and for Waugh, providing no peer review or editorial oversight over him. The self-promotion and socking that has gone on only strengthens (although is not the main reason for) this conclusion. Therefore we should Symbol delete vote.svg Delete this work. BethNaught (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete for the reasons stated above by Prosfilaes and BethNaught. We don't host self-published works, and using your own "press" to self-publish works is not of itself enough to merit inclusion. Comment: Also, I see no evidence this work is free of copyright. Page 2 states: "All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review." --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Regarding copyright, the work was released as CC-BY via OTRS. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think there's any real reason to question the copyright on this one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
This work is not expressly self-published; it is being assumed so. However, Wikisource does contain plenty of expressly self-published works, practically innumerable to count. Here are some examples found by a random search:
  1. Unity of Good
  2. When the Leaves Come Out
  3. Oliver Spence
  4. Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures (1889)
  5. No Treason (all 3 vols)
  6. The Brass Check
  7. Index:Rosemary and Pansies.djvu
  8. Index:Queen Moo and the Egyptian Sphinx.djvu
  9. Index:Craven-Grey - Hindustani manual.djvu
  10. Index:Songs of Russia.djvu
  11. Index:Gould - Mammals of Australia - Vol III.djvu
  12. Index:History of the Armenians in India (1937).djvu
  13. Index:Mammals of Australia (Gould), introduction.djvu
Therefore, self-publication itself is not a bar. The objection should invoke other pertinent points. Hrishikes (talk) 02:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
You need to take a closer look at how WWI is structured. The examples you've given were all published before 1923, and the self-publication clause of WWI is applied to "artistic works" published after 1922. It is not applied to analytic or scientific works, nor to works published before 1923. And for some of those scientific works you've given, the author is notable by WP standards, which is an noted exception expressly laid out in WWI. So, the reasoning behind this particular argument is flawed in more than one respect. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Your own reasoning does not cover this work. This is not an "artistic work"; this is an "analytical work" on the history of art. Hrishikes (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
This work is not "analytic" according to the definition laid out in WWI. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Regardless of whether this an artistic or analytical work, the "peer review or editorial control" test does apply. Note that WWI says "Analytical works are publications that... These as well as any artistic works must have been published in a medium that includes peer review or editorial controls; this excludes self-publication." (emph mine). BethNaught (talk) 07:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Regarding whether or not is is a creative work, note that the text contains a dozen paintings by the author. Regarding the rest, if "self-publication is not a bar" then I have some great grocery lists that I have been saving for posterity. I am at a loss to understand the keep votes, as this is a clear case of someone making up a theory, writing about it, inventing an imaginary vanity press and uploading it to wikisource. (Router reset, I'm, the the nominating IP.) 03:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
This was my Masters thesis at the University of Brighton, so it was peer-reviewed by multiple professors and professors' assistants. Jessewaugh (talk) 10:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Did you graduate? Theses are published in the library catalog. 12:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Irrelevant personal question, suggest not to be answered. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, the personal question is irrelevant. However, if the work is a university thesis, it may have been published by the university press, and would therefore not be self-published. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Many of those aren't self-published works; there are many, many editions of Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures around with many editors. Likewise No Treason has been reprinted in edited editions. I don't think that rule was intended to be held against original editions of works that have seen reprint in edited form.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep The self-publication component has to be applied with consideration, its purpose is not to stop peer-reviewed works. The work and the above evidence indicate that there is sufficient evidence that this is a serious work with valid authorship, and not some whimsy. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
    If we can verify that this work (or something nearly the same) was indeed submitted and accepted as a thesis at the University of Brighton, then I would agree. Theses and Dissertations accepted at accredited institutions certainly fall within our scope. But we lack verification. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
The work is showcased and downloadable in the academia subdomain of the University of Brighton: Hrishikes (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
But that's not part of the University of Brighton website. Anything at is an independent website for an academic vanity press. See their site description. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. Go to the UoB Library online advanced search and try finding this thing. The search (AuthorCombined:(Waugh)) AND (TitleCombined:(Pulchrism)) turns up no results. (Pulchrism) returns 10 results, none of which are this work. Note that the search form has an option to exclude dissertations and theses, which I did not select. BethNaught (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I oppose that idea strongly; when I proposed the (eventually and uncontroversially deleted) work by Author:Zaman Ali for deletion, it was not because it was not "a serious work with valid authorship". Even off-wiki, whatever reservations I have about the work, I fully believe Zaman Ali wrote Humanity: Understanding Reality and Inquiring Good with serious intent and result. And on-wiki, I see it absolutely harmful to try and weigh Humanity versus Pulchrism and say that one has enough value as a work to be kept and the other doesn't. WWI is clear enough and its authors wise enough that such things are steered clear of, for more neutral criteria.
    Is it a published thesis? If it is, it clears WWI. If it's not, it continues to fall into the exclusion of self-published works for me.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
    It is a published work: 1; and the author's name is present in the list of notable alumni of the University of Brighton: 2. Hrishikes (talk) 02:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
    The fact that a person has been to college / university is not a reason to include their work, and the book is still self-published. You have not successfully responded with any pertinent new information to any of the criticisms raised, but have repeated the same claims and assertions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete.(Struck:— Jessewaugh states outright that the work has passed peer review, and I'm not prepared to maintain the position that s/he lies. Hesperian 08:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)) We know/accept that this work was authored by Waugh as a masters thesis. It follows that it was prepared with the intent of submitting it for independent peer review, but we don't know if it was ever actually submitted for independent peer review, nor whether it passed independent peer review. The paucity of the usual evidence that it did, suggests to me that it did not. Subsequent publication by Carpophage press clearly does not constitute independent editorial or peer review. I conclude that it is self-published, and doesn't meet the bar to be included here. Hesperian 05:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
It would have been impossible for me to have graduated without my Masters thesis passing the peer review of my professors and their assistants - it is the primary requirement for obtaining a degree. This is my thesis and my being listed on the University of Brighton Notable Alumni page demonstrates that I graduated, so it follows that it has to have been peer reviewed. Jessewaugh (talk) 07:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
@Jessewaugh: that is a different answer to a different question. It would be helpful if you answered the question directly. Is this paper, that is published elsewhere and reproduced here, the paper that was submitted as your master's thesis and has subsequently passed peer-review? — billinghurst sDrewth 11:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Yes. Jessewaugh (talk) 11:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
CommentNominating IP here again. What we have above is a group of wiki editors trying vet a text on their own. Obviously external peer review (i.e. publishers) are supposed to do that job. The job of peer review is not supposed to be carried out here, as it is being done above with direct questions to the author about whether they had submitted it and had it reveiwed by professors. That is the publisher's job. It is also important to note that the 'author' being queried has consistently promoted and sockpuppeted, and has gone to the trouble to translate his vain autobiographical wiki article to German, Japanese, French, Hebrew, Italian, Spanish, Arabic(?), (not sure what this one is), Russian and Chinese, and who trumpets on his homepage that his pulchrism text "has been archived at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Tate Britain, Brooklyn Museum, Museum of Modern Art, Philadelphia Museum of Art, San Diego Museum of Art, Agnes Gund Collection, and others." (when in reality all he did was send them a free copy)? Don;t be taken in by the innocent act... read his comments here instead. The emperor has no clothes, as they say. 01:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Your comment provides no useful or pertinent information. Wikipedia is a different project with different criteria for inclusion. What is at issue here is the eligibility of the text for hosting on Wikisource, not the credentials of the author. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Since you are allowing the author to argue for inclusion of his own work, I think that warning that the author has engaged in ceaseless and unethical promotional activity within wikimedia is relevant. 01:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I am sorry that you cannot see the distinction between a work and its creator. I say again, this discussion is about the former only, and not the latter. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Just for the record and in my own self-defense, is a sock puppet of Michael Mandiberg AKA Theredproject, whose actions have proven that he has a personal vendetta against me, and who has been seeking to purge my presence from all Wikimedia. He repeatedly accuses me of sockpuppeting, while engaging in massive sockpuppeting himself - the pot calling the kettle black as a diversionary tactic. He’s also engaged in widespread slanderous character assassination against me and my art. I’m not sure why he has it in for me so virulently, and I am not familiar enough with the machinations of Wikimedia in order to be able to know how to request administrative review of his actions. My request would be that he and his sockpuppets and his gender-biased crony editors be prevented from purging subject matter related to me from Wikimedia, as they are obviously biased and politically motivated. Jessewaugh (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
@Jessewaugh: Don't play with the trolls. We are assessing one work, and that is the basis of what we are doing. It either is, or it isn't in scope is our discussion. We are not assessing the authors, if we did that then many of our works wouldn't be here, as the authors were shockers, so to me that argument is solely noise. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Generally each project is independent, and given the fact that your page has been salted on Wikipedia and people are discouraged from getting involved in their own pages on Wikipedia, I suspect that you'd be running a strong chance of a w:Wikipedia:BOOMERANG.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Let it be known that the IP heatedly denies such claims, and they seem completely irrelevant to the question of the book.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Apollo Lunar Landing Mission Symposium[edit]

The following discussion is closed: snippet moved to subpage, and the remainder has been provided through scan —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
This work is only a small part of Volume 2 or the overarching symposium. And only being a snippet, is outside of the scope described at WS:WWI. There is a link to the complete work, and if it is to be retained, then it should only be in the context of the whole work. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep, context of the whole work has been provided. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Page37-Darwin's Journal Pelagic Confervae.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted: speedy deletion as transwikied item —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I replaced this image with a better quality one on commons: File:Journal of Researches (1860) Page 015.jpg. — Mudbringer (talk) 06:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)