Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2024

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

Black women's history month

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied as both copyvio and beyond scope (excerpt from a web page).

No source, no author, no date, no license. Created by an IP. -- Beardo (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Speedied. Copyright violation, and beyond scope. Apparently copied (and scrambled) from the front page of https://blackwomenshistorymonth.com/. No indication that the content is freely licensed, and this webpage is the only source, making it clearly out of scope even if it was under a free license. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Well found. I had tried searching but hadn't found the source. -- Beardo (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Bible (Berean Standard)

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. Backing by scan started.

A fly-by drop off an empty table of contents from an IP. The translation in question is a digital-original work, without clear indication (that I could find) of who was responsible for the translation or its motivation. This has all the downsides of a digital-born text and anonymous works, and without more information, I don't know whether having this would add anything considering the number of Bible translations we have. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  •  Comment: A reason why the work does not continue might be it has been disallowed by an edit filter, see the AbuseLog. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 Keep. As @Jan.Kamenicek said, the reason why the contents of that entry was empty is because I was blocked by the abuse filter. The Berean Standard Bible is not a sketchy anonymous translation. That Bible translation was supervised by notable scholars in the original languages, like Grant Osborne and Eugene Merrill (https://bereanbibles.com/about-berean-study-bible/translation-process/). The BSB is accredited by the United Bible Societies' Digital Bible Library and is available at websites like bible.com. Physical bible s are available at websites like christianbook.com. Dziego~enwiki (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 Keep but probably it should be scan-backed —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
There appears to be a PDF version available here —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 Keep. Scanbacking has started. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Translation:A cup of coffee

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Copyvio; link in header points to source which has a copyright notice.

New WS translation not based on the scanbacked proofread original text at the appropriate language Wikisource. See also User talk:Jabsian#A cup of coffee (1914). BTW, we have a published translation of the work at A Cup of Coffee. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  •  Delete This is not a Wikisource original translation; it is a copyvio. The link in the header points to the site where this translation appears and is copyrighted. The move to the Translations namespace was made after this was posted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Index:Молода Україна. 1902.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. No transcription at uk.WS and no translation begun here.

Foreign-language work without any indication of progress in translation. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Index:Lamentos de Jeremías - lectura en la conferencia dominical del 21 de marzo de 1869, domingo de ramos (IA A11401204).pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. No transcription at es.WS so no translation can be completed here.

Foreign-language work without original-language transcription. While a little work has been done here, I don’t think it’s worth holding on to this copy. In addition, and particularly, this PDF is of extremely poor quality. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Index:Teodor Herzl.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Abandoned Index with only "no content" pages and no translation.

Foreign-language work without any indicia of local efforts towards translation. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Index:Un viaje de mil demonios - zarzuela bufo-dramática en tres actos y siete cuadros, original y en verso (IA unviajedemildemo21616roge).pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. No transcription at es.WS, so no original translation can be started here.

Foreign-language work without original-language transcription. In addition, there is no indication of local work in pursuance of a translation. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Index:Հաւատամքի կամուրջ, Թորոս Թորանեան.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Empty Index; corresponding work at hy.WS is barely started, and no attempt at translation has been made here.

Foreign-language work without significant original-language transcription and no indication of intention for a local translation. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Romanization tables

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. Proposal withdrawn.

The following tables are quite clearly beyond our scope per Wikisource:What Wikisource includes#Reference material. Were they not so many, I would have speedied them.

-- Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

 Keep Since these are documents that have been published through a US government website (The Library of Congress), why do you claim that they are beyond our scope? The Reference material clauses specifically refer to collections of material that have not been published or are part of a source text. Each of these was published as a PDF at the Library of Congress. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 Keep as well, per EP's rationale. If it was officially published, it doesn't matter to me what type of content it was, and in this case, the policy seems to agree. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
As I understand it, "not been published" is mentioned as one of problems accompanying standalone tables and a reason why they are excluded, not as a criterion that only not published tables are excluded. The rule says: "Wikisource does not collect reference material unless it is published as part of a complete source text, and specifically excludes tables. These tables are not a part of a complete source text, they are just tables. There are zillions of various standalone tables published on various government sites, and this rule excludes them unless they are published within some broader publication. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
It explicitly excludes "Tables of data or results", which none of these are. These are transcription pairs arranged as a table, and each was published in exactly the form present here, not as part of some larger work. For each of these, we have the complete source text as a PDF. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Well, I am not a native speaker, but are such transcriptions not "data"?
As you write, they were not published as a part of a larger work, but the rule requires they were. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
You have misinterpreted the Note at the end. It says that data published as part of a larger work are acceptable; not that such publication is required. All that is required is that they are not extracted from some larger work, but rather that the complete work is what we host. It may be instructive to look at older versions of the WWI page to see that the "no extracts" used to come shortly before the section about data tables. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Not going to change my vote, for a few reasons. The authenticity of the work, as a work, is clear. Let me explain. They were officially published somewhere as standalone documents. So since they are documents in their own right, from a data standpoint, I would consider these works with (at best) to be of the type document and chart.
My interpretation of the purpose of the cited bit of the WWI guidelines is to keep people from importing thousands of random charts from Wikipedia or other places. The sentiment is that mathematical facts alone aren't enough—that they have to exist as works (fundamentally created by humans, like documents), not as factoids (having some objective basis in the universe and not human hands, like statistics, or the numbers of pi). So even if policy is against me on this, it means our policy is written badly, so in very actually useful to the cause of Wikisource. So to bicker over interpretations of the words being said, when I think the wording is just bad and overly vague to begin with,
Noting here that if these works get deleted, I'll put these in a userspace page of mine to bring into undeletion discussions at PD, or Scriptorium discussions about changes to policy, in future discussions that I'll reinsert once every 6 months or year, since my opinion on this is one I feel extremely strongly about. A precedent to delete this would be pretty disturbing: it would severely limit the diversity of our content, and I consider this to be a significantly negative impact to us.
(ec) I also second EP's interpretation of what these works are. But even if this was a document that simply listed a million numbers of pi, or was a bit of statistical data, I'd still want it kept if it was published officially by the LOC. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
I think that tables listing "million numbers of pi" and alike is exactly what the rule tries to prevent. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: Well, I'd still maintain that a publication of these numbers is different from the numbers themselves. To elaborate, the difference is, you could give mathematical proof for what the numbers of pi are, scientific proof for the chemical composition of antifreeze, and statistical proof of how many residents of the state of Rhode Island have dyslexia. But, a document containing any of these requires the document to prove its contents, you know what I mean? So, we'd be trying to prove what the document said, not trying to use scientific or mathematical logic to make our case, which I think is the fundamental distinction. Because, for example, a 2013 document may have a few incorrect numbers, which only the human writers of the documents could have produced, or some unique formatting that again, only human writers could have produced. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
(although, to be fair, I just considered that a document with just numbers would not be a document in the English language, which could be deletable for that separate reason, so let's assume there was a title there, or something like that, as well) PseudoSkull (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull: Document giving a mathematical proof using a table of numbers to come to some conclusion, explained and written in words, is what the rule allows. The same about proof of occurence of dyslexia or chemical formulae. But pure standalone tables without any subsequent interpretation and further analysis of the included data (no matter whether they contain numbers, names, letters of alphabet or whatever) is what it forbids. The tables should serve as illustration to some explained main point within the same work, they should not be an end in itself. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Rules are one thing, but the community has the right to overrule them. Given the strong opposition, it is not very probable to reach consensus on deletion, so I am withdrawing the proposal. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep (especially as I was proofreading them). These are officially published documents, some of them with extensive commentary. Thus, they are not the purely statistical-type reference material which is explicitly prohibited by policy. It is not overruling the rules to keep them; it is following the rules. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ---Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Index:서울고등법원 2018. 6. 14. 선고 2017노2802 판결.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Index is not English; abandoned with no attempt made at translation; the Index at ko.WS has not been proofread, so it is not eligible for translation here.

Foreign language work with no work done. -- Beardo (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks like VGPaleontologist has prepared a bunch of indexes probably to work on, so let's wait a while for their reaction. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The Manuscript of Dr Ellington

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. No source; no evidence of the text or its author in major libraries or databases.

This was uploaded last May with no source and no license. The uploader has made no other contributions and seems unlikely to provide this information. I have not been able to find any information about this work either. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Just as a side note, I recently watched an episode of a TV show that was about a document forger who forged thousands of early Mormon church documents dating back to the 1600s. I think the forgeries were discovered in the 80s or 90s, and the document forger, once respected, was charged with fraud. The show said that even the Library of Congress (as of c. 1997) still has many copies of his forgeries. Scary... So you really never know with some of these kinds of documents. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
While the BL catalog is down, JISC's version is up and doesn't mention him along with dp.la. MarkLSteadman (talk) 08:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Sardanapalus: A Tragedy

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Unformatted copydump with no source.

Looks like copypaste from Gutenberg (including page numbers in square brackets). -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

 Delete PseudoSkull (talk) 11:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 Delete even if not from Gutenberg, it is a secondary transcription that doesn't meet any basic quality standards. MarkLSteadman (talk) 04:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Translation:Licensed Brothel and Prostitute Regulation Order

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Not in compliance with Wikisource:Translations for user-created translations.

Imported from mul: by Jusjih despite not being in accordance with Wikisource:Translations as there is no scan supported original language work present on the appropriate language wiki. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

La Borinqueña

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. No source; mostly Spanish text (not English) and no explanation of where the English text originated. There is no scan-backed copy at es.WS either. A search found a scan with the Spanish lyrics, that could be used to translated into English; and another text with parallel Spanish, English, and Shorthand, in a shorthand magazine.

This national anthem (Puerto Rico) is in Spanish, with no source. There is an English translation in brackets below each verse, also with no source. The Spanish text is hosted on es.WS but without a scan, although there is a backing law linked from their page, that gives the official text of the hymn, as adopted by the island's government. No English text appears in any of this, so I'm guessing the English was added by the creator of the page, whose sole contribution was this "anthem" in 2006. The Wikipedia article on this song likewise gives no credit for the origin of the English words. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  •  Delete The Spanish text is out of scope. The English text (just a literal translation, not a real translation of the rhythmic lyrics of the anthem) without the source or without confirmation that it was the contributor's own translation is a potential copyvio. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
    Note that there is a PD translation here [1] if we want to transcribe it and then we can delete this version as redundant to a scan backed version. MarkLSteadman (talk) 04:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
    That would be a challenge, since the text is in three forms: Spanish, English, and Shorthand. I don't even know whether we can transcribe shorthand. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
    I would just use the image, since the text is already provided in English and Spanish. If we did want to transcribe the shorthand I assume that would mean generating a standard text version of the original source text by fixing the abbreviations into standard spelling or just reproducing the abbreviated version of it, all in unformatted text (e.g. if they use g-r-t for great, transcribe it as such). We don't try to reproduce the exact look of long hand manuscripts, I am not sure why we would expect that we would reproduce the look of a short hand manuscript, and if someone wants to read the shorthand they can just click on the backing image anyways. Any render would like generate pngs or svgs anyways and not work with screen readers, search etc. MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
    I did find Canciones Populares, with the anthem on pp.1–2 with sheet music. If that were transcribed at es.WS, then we could host a translation with sheet music here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Greek Creation Myth

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. No source given, and possible copyvio based on research.

No source, no license. Transwikied from enWP back in 2005, appears to be originally from here which in turn gets its content from these sources. If I am correct in this origin of the text, it is clearly copyvio; but the text is so pervasive on the Internet that I cannot be entirely certain, so I am proposing deletion due to lack of evidence of free license or PD status. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

 Delete I tried to find out whether this version exists in print, searching in Google books and Hathi for some specific phrases, and did not find anything. This version seems to exist only on the Internet, and so it is probably quite a new text or a modification of an older text, and without a proper licence it should be deleted. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
I suspect that this is a rephrasing of the version in Google Books on p. 48-49 given that is listed as source [2], it might be possible to see a preview of a newer edition Google Books . It claims copyright 1973.  Delete. MarkLSteadman (talk) 04:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Index:ลัทธิฯ (๐๘) - ๒๔๖๓.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Although the Index is transcribed at th.WS, no effort has been made at translation here since creation. This is either abandoned or a complete non-start.

Foreign-language work, no English-language translation started. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems User:VGPaleontologist has created a lot of indexes without any intention to work on them and unfortunately does not react to questions, being asked (and pinged) here or here. I think that similar abandoned non-English indexes can be deleted upon sight. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Praise of Aton by king Ikhnaton and queen Nefernefruaton

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Extracts are disallowed by Wikisource:Extracts.

This is an excerpt "Published in A History of Egypt from the Earliest Times to the Persian Conquest (1905), pp. 371–6" as stated in the Notes. It fails under Wikisource:Extracts as a work hostable here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Coptos Decree

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Extracts are disallowed by Wikisource:Extracts.

This is an excerpt from Ancient Records of Egypt (1906), by James Henry Breasted. As an extract, it cannot be hosted here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

 Delete, but if the full work is ever transcribed, maybe this can be a redirect to that specific section (maybe). PseudoSkull (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Elements 103 to 118

The following discussion is closed:

Kept by consensus. Notable author and work, to which this is an addendum by the same author via their official website.

A brief, modern creative work uploaded by the author. Not in scope. Omphalographer (talk) 07:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Umm, I don't think that User:CalendulaAsteraceae is the same person as Author:Tom Lehrer. So, not uploaded by author. All of Lehrer's songs have been placed in the Public Domain. How is this one not in scope for Wikisource? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I've met her in person, so take it from me, haha!! Also, I think it'd be pretty incredible for someone who's presumably aged ~ 96 years old to be contributing to Wikisource at all. PseudoSkull (talk) 09:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
My bad, I missed that this was sourced from a document created by Lehrer. That being said, I have some lingering questions about scope which I'll post below. Omphalographer (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

N.B. This has been simultaneously nominated for deletion on Commons.

  • Keep. Clearly notable and in scope (as are the rest of his songs). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Keep I see a claim that it's not in scope, but no rationale stating what makes this out of scope. The apparent argument for deletion is: "brief, modern creative work uploaded by the author". But since neither "brief" nor "modern" nor "creative" are reasons for deletion, and since the work was not uploaded by the author, the argument falls flat. The brevity, modernity, and creativity of a work are never factors in deciding whether a work should be hosted on Wikisource, except when the modernity creates problems with copyright, which is not an issue in this instance, since the work was released into the public domain by its author. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
    My understanding of WS:SCOPE was that any works created after 1928 are subject to stricter inclusion guidelines regardless of their copyright status. This lyrics sheet doesn't obviously (to my eye, at least) fall into any of the allowed types of works - it's not a documentary or scientific work, and while it's an artistic work, was it "published in a medium that includes peer review or editorial controls"? I'm not sure; it looks to me like a Word document Lehrer wrote and uploaded to his (or a fan's?) web site. Omphalographer (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
    It's his website. IMO the notability criteria for scientific works should also apply to other artistic works, but I recognize that this isn't official policy.

    Previously unpublished scientific research, regardless of being peer reviewed or not, is acceptable to include in Wikisource if an author meets Wikipedia:Notability (regardless of the actual presence of Wikipedia article on the author) and the work is released under a Wikisource compatible license.

    —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 21:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
    Also relevant is the "Consensus" section at the bottom: "Some works which may seem to fail the criteria outlined above may still be included if consensus is reached. This is especially true of works of high importance or historical value, and where the work is not far off from being hostable. Such consensus will be based on discussion at the Scriptorium and at Proposed deletions." So, for example, items like poetry, speeches, letters, and other works may also be included if the community agrees.
    In this situation, Tom Lehrer is a notable person, with well-known lyrics to his "Elements" song, and these are his recommended updated lyrics to that song. Not only is Tom Lehrer himself notable, but w:The Elements (song) is notable enough to have a Wikipedia page of its own as well. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
    @Omphalographer: WS:SCOPE is very poorly written, so I don't blame you for being confused by it, but there are no stricter inclusion criteria for post-1928 works except for in terms of copyright. And that's only because that's the externally-imposed cutoff date for copyrights, not because Wikisource considers 95 years a particularly magical number of years for a text to ripen. Xover (talk) 06:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 Keep This is a more than legitimate work for us to host, for reasons already stated.
To go further, I don't even really agree with the "any works created after 1928 are subject to stricter inclusion guidelines regardless" principle. But, the reasons behind a policy should always be taken into consideration, since motivations behind policy are what cause the policies to exist in the first place.
The reasons apparent to me: A work from 96+ years ago's copyright status is way easier to determine. And works from 1928 and before are also more likely to be legitimate and authentic because of their old age—there was no Internet or any digital technology to tamper with them back then. Also, works from back then were almost universally formal, well-written, peer-reviewed, and/or had enough time by now to have some evident significance to history. Also, the people who made any of those works are quite guaranteed to be dead by now, leaving very little room for modern "tampering" or what have you. So the sentiment here essentially is, we'd have an easier time keeping out the mountains of dubious cruft from more modern times (think random blog posts, or a story that the editor wrote just yesterday) that many new users, unaware of what our goals are, will invariably try to contribute at some point or another.
I'm sure there are other reasons not noted here, but these are the primary ones I can see. I don't agree with it—in fact, if we're going to have a stricter interpretation of policy based on release year, it should probably be for works before March 1989, specifically for all works that fell into the public domain by what I'd call "natural" or "unintended" means (for example, no renewal, no notice, defective notice, etc.). Since any work that is old enough to have actually fallen into the public domain by accident was created before the invention of the World Wide Web in 1991, so...user generation is pretty much out of the question. But that being said, Consensus™ can override this easily, so the "after 1928 stricter inclusion" policy isn't as set in stone as all that. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
There is no "after 1928 stricter inclusion" policy. The 95-year cutoff is strictly a copyright thing. Xover (talk) 07:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
@Xover: There is: Wikisource:What_Wikisource_includes#Works_created_after_1928:. One specific section I take issue with is, "Analytical works are publications that compile information from other sources and analyze this information. Any non-fiction work which is written about a topic after the main events have occurred generally fits in this category. 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." So, the qualifications for works after 1928 are stricter. But, I have a huge amount of issue with this, since this would exclude even works that were self-published in, say, 1942, 1930, or 1965. It would exclude a huge amount of material that fell into the public domain by accident, such as genealogical materials from around that time, a hugely useful historical asset. So, I was saying, if we're going to pick a date to exclude self-publication after, it should be 1989 (the cutoff date for "no notice, no registration"), since it would be impossible for something to fall into the PD by accident after that year, and coincidentally also two years before the existence of the World Wide Web, making "blog posts" or "Tumblr fanfiction" or "my diary entry written just yesterday" or the like impossible (which I think this policy is mostly trying to address).
Of course, a better solution than that would be to just not exclude any works solely based on self-publication at all, and use some more nuanced metric. But if we're gonna use years to play this game, 1989 is a lot more fair to public-domain enthusiasts and archivists, since using 1929 as a year excludes a good chunk of perfectly valid and authentic 20th century history. PseudoSkull (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull: The policy page is confusing. The bit you quote isn't really specific to post-1928 works, it's just that the policy page is structured to make it look like that because it tried to cover copyright too. In reality we do not differentiate between pre- and post-1928 works along these lines, so long as they are public domain or compatibly licensed. Have I ever mentioned that our policy pages suck, badly, and we need a major cleanup? No? Then let me just take the opportunity to mention that our policy pages are a horrible mess that confuses people and do not well represent our actual policies (i.e. what we actually practice). Xover (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
I think we meant to separate older and modern texts this way, so that we don't accept any random stuff released under a compatible license, but older stuff that someone wants to transcribe is fine, as it doesn't have the ego and promotional issues. Our policies in practice may be different, but I think they embody part of that ideal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
The intent was to treat older and modern texts differently when it was implemented back in 2007: see the discussions from then. 1923 was picked as a convenient cutoff (other suggestions then were a 100 or 120 year cutoff). I don't know if the policy needs revision (PseudoSkull makes good points, but if nothing else 1929 is a fair bit further away from 2024 than 1923 is from 2007) but it is what it is. Arcorann (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Keep. I have several concerns about this text—can we really say it has been subject to any editorial control or been previously published by a reputable publisher; is the generated PDF version of the Word file version of what was really published as a web page meaningfully "a scan"; etc.—but I don't really think those concerns rise to a deletion discussion just now (we have much bigger issues). The concerns raised in the actual nomination are obviously based on the misunderstanding that CalendulaAsteraceae was the original author of the text and that they were uploading a personal work, and as such there's no valid rationale for deletion in the nom. --Xover (talk) 07:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
    For the record, the work was originally published as a Word file, and I converted it to PDF without making any edits like improving the formatting. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 16:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
    Sure. But is Elements 103 to 118 a work unto itself, or is it an excerpt of "The Elements"? Is this an evolving work, or is the version that includes elements 103 to 118 just an edition of the abstract work? Is this even "The Elements" we're talking about as the work, or is the work the webpage hosted at the address https://tomlehrersongs.com/the-elements/? Once you start picking at the details there's rather a lot to choose from. Xover (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I personally think this fails WS:WWI because it has not "been published in a medium that includes peer review or editorial controls; this excludes self-publication" — but I acknowledge that this is quibbling over technicalities so I won't contest the consensus (though I hope a better source can be found) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Keep Our policies may need a clarification, but I generally think this is something we should keep, somewhere between "in reality, our policies are more like ..." and simple w:WP:IAR.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Author:Loyd Blankenship

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied. The author has no known freely-licensed works and certainly none hosted here, so the author page is useless as it is.

This author's only listed work. "The Hacker Manifesto" has been deleted as not being in public domain. -- Beardo (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: PseudoSkull (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Ram Raksha Stotra

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied, out of scope.

Non-English text added to en-wikisource mistakenly as it already exists at sa:रामरक्षास्तोत्रम्. Kashmiri (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Club Q Owner Shares SHOCKING Hate Messages He Received After the Shooting

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as extract: most of the content consisted of quoted non-free material that had to be redacted. The resulting extract fails WS:WWI.

Transcription of random podcast (original content). It does not appear that this specific podcast is of any particular value. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

 Keep What does the "original content" label have to do with anything? Most content is originally made by a source outside of Wikisource. Also, many historical works without any particular value are allowed on here, and one could even argue that such a work documenting an occurrence such as this may be historical in nature. Many other creative works, of little to no academic or recreational value, are also allowed on this wiki. I see no reason as to why this podcast episode may not be included with other works. VGPaleontologist (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
  • If we include this podcast article, we would reasonably expect to include mirrors of all podcasts, which is not a good use for Wikisource. Wikisource specifically does not include all recently published (though freely licensed) material, and for good reason; otherwise, we have many podcast transcriptions like this one. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
There is no Wikipedia article on the podcast The Humanist Report, on the one hand. But then, Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and enforcement of those guidelines, are pretty messed up (which is why I tend to edit here instead). Clearly the podcast has a good amount of notability, about as much as Vaush (another leftist YouTuber who has a similar subscriber count, and also his own Wikipedia article) or Carl Benjamin aka Sargon of Akkad (a right-wing YouTuber, also with a WP article).
So to say this podcast has "no particular value" is a little off. This isn't just a random podcast of someone with 100 subscribers. Keep in mind ~400K subscribers is a lot of people, equal to the population of a medium-sized city... I think Wikipedians and Wikimedia in general need to have a discussion about how to cover large social media figures on their platforms, because in the modern context they have a lot more notoriety than it may appear in more "traditional" sources for citation, such as print books or news media. Keep in mind, many of these political YouTubers literally influence the decisions of politicians at a federal level. It might be hard to believe, but there have been recorded instances of public policymakers watching and interacting with YouTubers like Destiny, Vaush, Sam Seder, and the like.
In addition to notoriety, the podcast The Humanist Report looks professional, so I would call it peer-reviewed. There is clearly a team behind it (as is true with many large social media figures), reviewing and editing the material, which would seem to match our standards for peer review.
In any case, if we're going to keep this, it probably needs to be sourced with an original upload, and cleaned up to fit more along the lines of sound film styling. An example of how this should look can be found at Lights of New York and Night of the Living Dead.
I get that this might be a hard argument for others to sympathize with, since we don't really have a precedent for how to include this type of content. I don't remember any transcriptions of podcasts here, and there's certainly no real standard for them. But notability in the public discourse and modern political history, (mostly) free licensing, and professional editing and peer review, put me at a marginal Keep vote. But, this one podcast episode in and of itself isn't that useful—a bigger transcription effort on this type of material is in order.
I'd like to note that Modern Day Debate, another YouTube channel with no WP article, is professional and peer-reviewed, includes many notable political and philosophical figures of the modern day, often freely licenses their videos, and has been used to garner clips and photos of these figures on Wikimedia Commons. (But their debates are REALLY long, and might be hell to transcribe.) Just a thought. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
I would also like to mention that, in general (for mostly copyright reasons albeit), we don't have very much representation of modern content on Wikisource outside of formal legal content, making the diversity in represented time periods (inherently) significantly undercut. We should be including significant content such as podcasts from the modern day, so that we can be a useful resource to those trying to understand our modern political and social context. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
  • PseudoSkull: In terms of the podcast I was referring to this episode in particular, rather than the whole series. I don’t think that the level of influence an individual Internet personality has is relevant to inclusion—rather, if a specific work is important, it can be kept. I also don’t think that a podcast can count as professional (by the standards we have for professionality). Along those lines, could we include all of this Vaush’s Tweets (of which there apparently 30,000+) if he chose to release them all under a free license? I think it would be absurd to do such a thing, and these podcasts (and YouTube videos, and Twitch streams, &c.) are just the same thing, except that they are a bit longer. Similarly, I don’t think that we should host any YouTube videos at all, unless they fall under the traditional publishing criteria (like videos produced by congressional committees) or have specific, independent notability (like “Me at the zoo”). Absent such restrictions, Wikisource (and by extension Commons) would become a mirror repository for all of the Web. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
@TE(æ)A,ea.: Re Vaush's Tweets—no, because he writes those himself, those aren't (to my knowledge) subject to independent review, and if they are then just barely. And it's hard to even call those "works", since they're so short and really can often only be understood in the context in which they're published (i.e. on Twitter itself. Oh sorry, X). The same could be said about tweets by anyone, even Donald Trump and Barack Obama. The Twitter activities of those two figures both have their own separate Wikipedia articles by the way, but I don't think that even their tweets, or any collection of them, counts for inclusion.
And you raise a good point about mirroring. Since I've mentioned, it is a rabbithole that would be hard to go down, without feeling like we're just a mirror site.
I don't know where the line should be drawn. I'm not necessarily gung-ho about keeping this one instance of an episode either. Although, I don't think it should be out of the question, given their relevance to our modern political and social atmosphere. Far more people online will know who Brett Cooper is than will ever recognize the name of Hollywood director Fritz Lang (which I think is sad, and speaks to the degradation of our society's understanding of culture and history, personally, but it's reality nonetheless). And I think that is a point that should be considered here. Although, which content to keep from those types of figures, and how much of it, etc., is a subject that will require massive amounts of debate, and I don't claim to have all the answers.
One suggestion, for example, might be to keep based on whether or not a particular episode was mentioned in media sources (although more questions: how many? which ones? probably need to be somehow answered). For example, in instances where The Humanist Report is mentioned on the news for making a particularly controversial or extreme statement, it'd probably be useful for someone to have easy access to the original source (the video) to verify their claims about what was said. (Although, this metric would probably exclude the episode in the current debate).
Most political streamers nowadays just take excerpts from their streams and upload them as videos, and sometimes even multiple videos from the same stream clips. I'm not sure if this is the case for The Humanist Report, but I know it is for Vaush, Destiny, and many others. If it is, I'd probably say delete The Humanist Report, because it fails WS:EXCERPT, and the source really should (in theory) be the entire stream, not the one clip.
Anyway, with all these considerations in mind (and there are probably a lot more), I'm changing my vote to Abstain. I think before we start adding this type of content, we need to discuss how to do it, how much of it we should include or exclude, what sources we should use, etc. at a place like the Scriptorium, since the question gets really complicated very quickly.
TL;DR, I don't know what to do with this. I sympathize with both the opposition and the desire for this type of content. But more input is needed than can ever be resolved in a single deletion discussion, so maybe we should just delete for now. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 Delete The core content lies in the quoted material, which has been redacted since it is non-free. With the non-free material redacted, this is no longer a useful or relevant work, and it fails to accomplish what the original material was intended to do, which was to provide those quotations and create a story around them. All the underpinnings removed makes this a non-story, and amounts to "selected sections of a larger work", i.e. an extract, which is against WS:WWI. For some works, a small portion removed leaves the work largely intact, but in this instance all of the meat has been removed and we're left with the husk of an extract. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 Delete per EP's rationale. Any discussion about the validity of internet podcasts (in general) or YouTube streams should be considered separately from this argument. PseudoSkull (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

One Word is Too Often Profaned

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, and converted to Redirect.

Unsourced poem, of which we have a scan-backed edition at The Complete Poetical Works of Percy Bysshe Shelley (ed. Hutchinson, 1914)/To ——. 'One word is too often profaned' —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

 Delete (or rather, turn into redirect) PseudoSkull (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 Delete and/or redirect. Can the page not be blanked and redirected without deleting it first? Cremastra (talk) 13:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@Cremastra: No, it's connected to a Wikidata item so it needs to be technically deleted here to break that connection and then recreated as a redirect. Xover (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
I mean, one could manually remove the redirect from the WD item :D but regardless of whether the page is blanked or deleted and recreated, the deletion procedure is the same. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Barbara Newhall Follett

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied as errors requested by creator.

I'm trying to add more content to the works of american author Author:Barbara Newhall Follett, as such I started working in transcribing he novel The House Without Windows and tried to add an author page for her. By accident I created two wrong pages: Barbara Newhall Follett and Author:Barbra Newhall Follett I request that the incorrect pages be deleted and only the correct one remain. I apologize for my mistakes and hope to improve the content for this author in wikipedia and wikisource. Thank you. HendrikWBK (talk) 12:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Done, deleted the pages. @HendrikWBK: no problem. Next time you'd like a page deleted, you can add the template {{speedy}} with a short explanation that it was a mistaken creation. Thanks for working on this, and happy editing! SnowyCinema (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Medicine and the church.djvu and associated Index.

The following discussion is closed:

Request withdrawn.

Duplicate of File:Medicine and the church; being a series of studies on the relationship between the practice of medicine and the church's ministry to the sick (IA medicinechurchbe00rhodiala).pdf, They are the same edition, but the latter is locally hosted, as it contains material not compatible with Commons licensing policy. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Request is the wrong way round. Keep the .djvu file and delete the .pdf (along with Index: and Page:). If the .djvu file needs to be localised that's a separate process. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Withdrawn per comments elswhere. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The Complete Works of Mark Twain

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted; not a published series we have, but a list linked to various unrelated editions of those works.

For some reason this was in Author space (as Author:Samuel Langhorne Clemens/Authorized Edition) but I moved it to the correct namespace.

That said, this is only a bare TOC of this edition of Twain's works, so perhaps it should be deleted as incomplete/abandoned.

If anyone wants to rescue it, scans are available here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

A further note - many of our copies of Twain's works are second-hand, so perhaps this would be a good opportunity to begin a proper proofreading project? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 Delete — This should rather be a scan backing of the series itself. Since each novel or other work within a "Works of <author>" collection is a separate version of the work than the original version which we usually also are hosting. What's currently here is more of a portal, that includes works that happened to be included in this collection. What should be there, though, are links to the volumes themselves, which should ideally by scan-backed. It links to the wrong versions, making the page an invalid addition to our structure. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
That is what I am saying - as an alternative to deleting this page, we could proofread The Complete Works of Mark Twain and then use that edition to replace the unsourced (not original) editions we currently have of most of his works. (The fact that the links on the page are pointing to different editions is, in my opinion, largely irrelevant, because that would be the first thing to be fixed if this work is not deleted :D )—Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 Comment The scan links to at least two separate editions (e.g. [3] and [4]) so someone needs to figure out which set to proofread from (and whether that is a complete set). In addition this edition appears to be lightly illustrated, while many of the works were originally published with heavy illustrations, which might cause more discussion than usual about replacing illustrated second-hand editions with non-illustrated scan-backed editions. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Also, there are other uniform editions of Twain's wok, notably the 1899 Autograph edition [5] in 25 volumes and the Gabriel Wells edition [6] in 37 volumes. Also this series dates to the 1930s (e.g. [7] is copyrighted 1935)), [8] MarkLSteadman (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Unsourced duplicate poems by Emily Dickinson

The following discussion is closed:

deleted; all redirects restored —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Unsourced editions, almost (but not quite) identical to sourced editions in Poems (Dickinson). Probably proofread against the collection The Complete Poems of Emily Dickinson (1955) which cannot be hosted here for copyright reasons (though the individual poems themselves are not copyrighted). The duplication appears to have happened because these poems have individual titles in Poems (Dickinson), but are titled by first line in the unsourced editions.

Differences between these editions and the ones in Poems (Dickinson) are extremely minor, and mostly consist of punctuation (especially dashed, which the unsourced poems are full of) and capitalization. Some poems have a word or two difference. Here's an example: You left me — Sire — two Legacies — (unsourced) vs You left me, sweet, two legacies,— (in Poems) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

 Delete. As noted with all the unsourced editions, a better decision is probably to delete them all, especially due to copyright concerns but also with general maintenance-related concerns, as is apparent here. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm not advocating to delete all unsourced editions. These ones in particular are not under copyright. That's a bigger can of worms than I'm willing to deal with at the moment; better to leave that discussion to the current thread in WS:CV lol. For now, I'm just proposing to delete pages that are essentially redundant, but not quite identical enough for me to be comfortable speedying them. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 Delete --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Question Question: @Beleg Tâl: Before the pages get deleted, something should be done with the links to them in the subpages of the Dickinson's author page, like Author:Emily Dickinson/T. Shall the links be redirected to the appropriate subpages of Poems (Dickinson)? Or should the above listed pages be changed into redirects instead of being deleted? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, after deletion all of these links will be converted to redirects. If the poems are also in The Complete Poems of Emily Dickinson then I'll make them into versions pages. So long as I can delete the bad edition instead of including it on the versions page, I'll be happy :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: as there was no opposition for a week, I deleted the pages. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: lol, thanks. You're a lot more efficient than me, I was going to give it a month :p —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Template:Font-old

The following discussion is closed:

Moved to User-space by creator.

Unused, and redundant to the font size templates, {{color}} and other more specific style templates. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 21:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

This was always intended as a temporary measure. If you can write a guide on what the conversions are, I'll move this to my Userspace. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Now userfied, and as you say no longer in active use. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Korean Code of Judicial Conduct

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Incomplete user-generated translation with no source.

A translation started in 2012 by an IP address and barely even started. It is also unsourced, and as a user-generated translation is ineligible to be included in the mainspace. SnowyCinema (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Systema Entomologiae and Supplementum Entomologiae systematicae

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Speedied as non-English copydumps.

Unsourced partial excerpts of a non-English work (need I say more?) — If you're curious, the full work is available here —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Translation:Odes (Horace)

The following discussion is closed:

Kept, no consensus.

Incomplete and abandoned. What is more, there is no scan supported transcription on the appropriate language wiki and so even if somebody wanted to continue the translation, they cannot do so according to WS:T. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  •  Keep True, the Latin text at la.WS is not scan-backed, but their text is taken from the authoritative Perseus database of Greek and Latin texts, which pulls their texts from documented and published originals. In this case, the Latin text is the one edited by Paul Shorey and Gordon J. Laing, published in 1919. So there is a verifiable, stable Latin original of high quality proofreading available both at la.WS and at Perseus. I note also that portions of our Odes translation are part of the AP Latin Syllabus listings. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @Jan.Kamenicek: There has been no further commenting for a week. Do you concur that Perseus, a text database which strives for accuracy, and that documents carefully the published sources of their texts, which are then used by academics specializing in the field of classical texts, is a suitable stand-in for a scan? If so, then please close this discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
    This applies only to the second argument, my first argument was that the work is incomplete and abandoned, per WS:Translations: Works that are incomplete and abandoned for long periods may be nominated for deletion. As for the source available at Perseus, I was not able to check it as the page is not accessible at the moment.
    As for the AP Latin Syllabus: this is imo quite off topic and irrelevant to our discussion. Besides, Horace does not really seem to be recommended in the AP Latin Reading list. So I would stick to what is in our scope instead of to external syllabi. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
    • Each individual ode is complete; it is only the collection of Odes that is incomplete. Since each ode is a work in its own right, the incomplete clause does not apply. And with an academic source, it is equivalent to having a scan available to complete the remaining Odes. I just tried the Perseus link, and it loaded just fine for me. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
      Is it this link? If so, I keep receiving the "Not Found" message. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
      I accept the argument that each ode is an individual work. I am quite curious if the inaccessibility of the source is only my problem or if more people have it. If the latter is true, then we do not have a proofread version available to everybody. I will try it later again, and it would be great if more people checked it meanwhile too. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
      • Try this link to go directly to Carmina by Horace. The text at la.WS is the same as that at Perseus, so even places blocked from accessing the site, for whatever reason, can access the same text at la.WS. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
        Well, I am still not really happy about it. I think WS contributors should be able to check check the original easily whenever they are in doubts as for both its transcription and its translation. This is not fulfilled with the Latin Odes, because the link which they provide does not seem to work for everybody and so it can be difficult to get to the source from which the transcription was copypasted, and because what the source offers is also only a transcription, though supposingly reliable, and not the original. Were this copypasted to English Wikisource and not to Latin Wikisource, it could be deleted as a second-hand transcription. If English Wikisource does not accept such copypastes, why should we accept translations of copypastes. Imo Wikisource translations should always be based on Wikisource transcriptions of originals that can be easily checked against a scan. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
        • You were using the wrong link, and trying to connect through the Univ. of Chicago. The link I provided is a different link; did you try it?. We stopped accepting secondhand transcriptions as a general rule because most of those were coming from Gutenberg (which has been demonstrated as a flawed, with unverifiable source and doubtful process), or from somewhere else random on the internet, which likewise has no possible means of checking the quality and accuracy. With an academic transcription, the quality is going to be equivalent to our own transcriptions, and in this instance it's being translated into English. For this particular text, the original cannot be hosted at la.WS because it has front matter and copious notes in English, not Latin. We can certainly upload a scan to Commons, and point to individual pages from each Ode, but the work would never be fully transcribed anywhere except at mul.WS, where texts go to die. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
          Yes, I did try the link you provided and it worked, but the link la.ws provides for the source does not, making it difficult to check the source. As for the transcription: I agree that there is little use of transcribing it at mul. However, you pointed out correctly that each ode is an individual work, so it should be possible to upload the scan of the edition to Commons and transcribe only the individual works to la.ws. But I admit that your arguments weakened my conviction about this work, so if the deletion is not supported with more votes within some reasonable time, let's say one more week, I will step back in this particular case only, not wishing it to become a precedent for other cases. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Index:Eletricity Formulas.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied. WS:CSD G5 - Beyond scope as user-created list of formulae.

Self published by uploader (2009), and not sourced to a textbook or journal. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The Monument of Giordano Bruno

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied as redundant per speedy del. criterion no. 4: An unsourced work that is redundant to a sourced version.

This unsourced version can be deleted as there is a scan backed copy at The Monument of Giordano Bruno. Regards, Chrisguise (talk) 13:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The Christmas Tree and a Wedding

The following discussion is closed:

speedied as redundant —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

This should be deleted as it transcludes the same pages as The Christmas Tree and the Wedding Regards, Chrisguise (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Undelete Peter Pan, or The Boy Who Wouldn't Grow Up (1904)

The following discussion is closed:

Not restored. Previous copy was deleted for copyvio, but also had no source and was apparently secondhand and altered. One month of no admin agreeing to undelete the text, but an Index page has been started from a scan in the Monthly Challenge.

Now (finally) public domain in the US. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  •  Comment The copyright date in the US was 26 Oct 1928, according to previous research that led to deletion as a result of copyright discussion. What was not discussed at the time is that the work had no source given, and appears to be a secondhand transcription. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
    Agree. I am also not in favour of undeleting unsourced works. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
    Okay, thanks for looking at this. Since I'm not an admin here and didn't see that discussed I was assuming that copyright was the only issue. I'll stick with Gutenberg's copy for now, then. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Support until we are able to host a scan-backed copy, and delete at that point. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
    I am afraid that undeleting unsourced version would make it less likely that somebody will add a scan-backed one. Imo people are more tempted to add missing works. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The commentary on the Talk page at the time presented evidence this was not the work it claimed to be, but simply a modified version of the Gutenberg (Australia) copy of the 1928 script. With no source, and with evidence that the work was misrepresented and altered, this would be grounds for deletion were it nominated today. I see no advantage to Wikisource to undelete a text worth deleting. I also could find no scan dated 1904 to back this work from Google Books, Hathi, or IA; nor could I find a work with this title. I can find copies of a Peter Pan play in scan form, but none with a matching title. With no backing scan, there is no means to save this work; and if this work has altered even the title, then the number of errors needed to make this usable are likewise going to be very high. I prefer starting from scratch. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. No source or license; transcription page exists for another version.

This document contains no publication info and no license. I found a scan here but it also contains no information about when it was published. The BASF appears to date to the 1800s, but our edition is different enough quite different from the only clearly-PD version I could find, so I think it ought to be deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

 Delete - It appears to have been copied and pasted from a website that is now defunct, so this version could be copyrighted. But whether or not it is, it's dubious enough that it could cause questions, meaning a scan-backing is much more appropriate here. SnowyCinema (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 Comment BTW I've uploaded Index:1877 Christadelphian Statement of Faith.pdf (i.e. the "clearly-PD version" I mentioned above), so the Christadelphian creed won't be completely lost —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The Book of Sallustius the Philosopher

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Self-published translation without peer review.

This translation comes from this website; although it's been released into the public domain, it's definitely not in scope. A newer version of the same translation is available here —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  •  Comment Please explain. "[D]efinitely not in scope" is a very broad statement. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
    Per WS:WWI:

    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.

    Also:

    Works [...] otherwise not published in a verifiable, usually peer-reviewed forum do not belong at Wikisource. Wikisource is not a method for an author to get their works published and make them available to other people, nor is it a site to discover "new talent".

    Also:

    works whose content is expected to constantly change over time, for the purpose of keeping the work updated, to improve the content matter of what has already been published, or to make the text more comprehensive, are excluded from Wikisource's scope.

    Since this translation fails all three of these points, it is clear that it definitely fails our inclusion policy and is thus definitely out of scope. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
     Comment if the last criteria was the only obstacle, via her Patreon are published as ebook versions apparently ("Reader access") which might count as a static "edition". As per the first two, I agree with it not being included with the policy as written, unless we want to treat this as a user-contributed translation which would then require proofreading the Greek edition (from https://archive.org/details/desdieuxetdumond0000sall) first. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think it's worth keeping under the pretence of it being a user-contributed translation based on Martiana's PD translation—but if someone wants to proofread the Greek edition so we can keep it, I won't object :D —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Sally: A Story of West Point

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Incomplete, unsourced transcription.

This unsourced transcription consists only of a table of contents and a single chapter and has not been touched in several years. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I added a note about the originally publication, "Originally serialized in the Brooklyn Magazine Vol. II (1885) pp. 91-99, 133-139, and 185-193." It is available on Hathi: https://hdl.handle.net/2027/inu.32000000677106 , in case anyone volunteers to transcribe it, it being not that long... MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Is that the same edition as the one that is already started? I have run into several issues recently with online editions that are almost but not quite the same as the published editions, and if they aren't identical I'm inclined to just delete the old one and then re-add it if/when a transcribed edition is available. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Well you can proofread it as a subpage of Brooklyn Magazine, speedy delete this version as redundant to a scan backed copy, and then create the redirect. MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Eight Homilies Against the Jews

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. No source; likely copyvio; no evidence of a translation to English by 1935, and possibly not before 1979.

No source given, and a search of various scan repositories turned up only more recent publications than our copy, that appear to have used our copy as their source. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

 Delete, almost certainly copyvio. I found some discussion about the source of (what I believe to be) this translation here, and they have been unable to track down its origin either. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 Comment Nearly all the information about this text on Wikipedia seems to come from a single 1979 book. No earlier English translations are cited or mentioned. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 Delete No mention of a translation in William's 1935 work summarizing these homiles as well. MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The April Theses and The Development of Capitalism in Russia

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Copydump without source of license; redirected to scan-backed copy.

Drive by copydumps with no source, license, or even any attempt at making them even remotely presentable —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The Book of Our Country

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.Incomplete translation with no source; possible copyvio.

Incomplete translation without a source. Possibly a user-created translation; the creator never replied to that question on the work's Talk page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom. I don't think we can say with any certainty that the uploader is the translator, and I see on their talk page that I previously identified some of their uploads as copyvio translations, so I am inclined to suspect the same is happening with this work too. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Index:Taraanaye-Watan.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied as beyond scope.

Non english work, Currently transcribed pages not a Translation? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Tikvatenu

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Research determined that the number and sequence of stanzas does not match Imber's poem; the Arabic is beyond scope.

This text was added in 2008. No source was provided for the English translation; the Hebrew is not scan-backed at he.WS (and no source was given); and neither does the Arabic have a source. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

 Keep (as much as it pains me to say so lol). The translation appears to have been imported from Wikipedia, and we have precedent for treating works translated by Wikipedia editors as user-supplied translations; and since it was added in 2008 it predates our rules for scan-backing on other Wikisources and so I believe the WS:T#Grandfather rule would apply. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I've done some additional research, and this is not the poem Tikvatenu, as originally written by its author. The poem should have only nine stanzas, not eleven, and not in the order we have here. See this article which includes a history, the Hebrew, and an English translation. We have no source for this work, as we have it here, and it does not match the poem it claims to be. So I do not believe grandfathering applies here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
  • @Beleg Tâl: Given the research I uncovered, do you still believe we should keep this text? --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
    I think we could technically keep it by deleting the offending verses, but honestly I think that you've got enough of a rationale to get rid of this poor quality text that I'm happy to support its deletion :D  Delete —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The Porcelain Doll

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Secondhand transcription with footnotes added by the transcriber.

Second-hand transcription copypasted from https://www.marxists.org/archive/tolstoy/1863/the-porcelain-doll.html , including footnotes. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

A bold proposal! If we establish precedent for deleting works just because they are second-hand, there are so many works I'll be happy to nominate for deletion :D (good bye, Category:Works possibly copied from Project Gutenberg!) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Well, I am not courageous enough to nominate them all at once, so at the moment I usually pick those which 1) are second-hand transcriptions accompanied with something undesirable, like copied notes of the previous transcriber etc., or 2) were added to WS after the rule forbidding second-hand transcriptions was established. So instead of revolution by deleting everything at once I think that at this moment it is better to go by the way of evolution by getting rid of them step by step. (However, if somebody nominated them all, I would support it, although I do not believe in the positive result.) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Note that marxists.org says: "Source: Text from WikiSource.org. Written 1863" and the revoltlib dates to 2021, so that can't be where it was copied from. It looks to be from IA which is copyrighted 1958, Randall Jarrell. However since that is an anthology I suspect it might be a reprint of the Maude 1928 translation of "The Procelain Doll" in The Devil and Other Cognate Stories MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

2003 Wikipedia Press Release

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. WS:OR (copied from Wikipedia), As a Wikipedia press release, it belongs at Meta or WikiNews, it does not meet WS criteria for digital-born media hosted on WikiSource.

This is a straight copy of w:Wikipedia:Press releases/January 2003. Xover (talk) 07:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

 Neutral I think we have several Wikipedia publications copied in this manner; I don't really see any reason to consider them out of scope. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 Delete per quite a similar discussion at Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2023#Wikimedian activist Adrianne Wadewitz dies. We should host primarily texts where we can add some value to them (like proofread or validated transcription of originally printed text into electronic text). Pure mirroring of copypasted internet texts, especially those from other Wikimedia projects, is valueless. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
While I do agree with this, the same argument could apply to a great many of the US Government works we host (including most works copy-pasted from the White House website) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Into the Darkness

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied as copyright violation; renewal located. The work cannot be hosted here until 2036. The copy was also a secondhand transcription from Gutenberg Australia, and WS no longer accepts such works.

Announced as an intended copy from Gutenberg. Starting a discussion in the hopes that a scan can be found to save this work from deletion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Note it is Gutenberg Australia, or we sure that is PD in the US? I see (Renewal: R414351) MarkLSteadman (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
OK, this is a copyvio then. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Lamb of God

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Discussion favored the creation of a Versions page in its place.

No source is given or hinted at. The information in the header only points out that another work by the same name exists. The Wikidata link is generic. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete in the current form, it would not surprise me if we have a bunch of these unsourced prayers scattered about. I am surprised that apparently we don't have any mass settings or Roman missals to link to. We could redirect to anchors in the Book of Common Prayer, and the CE article on the subject. The header isn't referring to another work but a different usage as a symbol. MarkLSteadman (talk) 08:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
We have a few transcription projects for missals; I think we could turn this into a versions page. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
By "versions page" do you mean a list of transcriptions from various sources? If so, then I would vote to do that with all the random unsourced prayers. There are Roman Catholic prayer books and missals here (I'm working on a few myself) but extracting all of the prayers out to their own pages would be a really big job. (See also Salve Regina, above.) Laura1822 (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Letter Concerning the Dismissal of Khaled

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Extract consisting of two sentences from within a paragraph of a book by Washington Irving.

According to the header information, this is an extract from Washington Irving's Mahomet and His Successors. It therefore fails Wikisource:Extracts. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

This seems more like a complete work quoted within another work, so I don't think Wikisource:Extracts applies. However, with no scan and no license provided, I'm willing to !vote  Delete regardless. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep as a quoted work. The translation is clearly PD-old, as Irving’s author pages gives an 1850 publication and death in 1859. A copy is available here, on p. 394. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
    Under what principle have we ever kept works because they are quotes? In the location you've identified, this appears within quotes as part of a larger paragraph. There is no indication that the complete letter was quoted. So this is at least an extract from a paragraph in a work by Washington Irving, and perhaps a partial quotation of a larger work, though that cannot be determined from the evidence we have. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
    • Not as “quoted works,” but as whole works printed in other works, they have been kept. I think that this work is such a work, despite the way it is placed within the quote. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
      Do we have any evidence that this is the complete text of the letter? With no salutation, and no conclusion, it would be a very unusual letter. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
      Irving of course lacks any sourcing in his history, there is no way to assess the credibility of this letter from a thousand years before. It would be much more reasonable if this was was a direct quote rather than how many games of telephone to the presumably Arabic historical source so there is no way for the reader to assess the reliability of the quote as being actually by Umar or embellished by Irving. MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
      Btw a more modern translation is here with the sourcing to the Arab historians: https://www.wokingmuslim.org/work/islamic-review/1956/may56.pdf. I have no idea how we want to interpret the no second-hand / no extracts form WWSI with regard to works that exist only as quotes in works by other authors with the original lost (do we have a consensus view for the same issue with regard to ancient authors?). My initial view is that we should allow linking to such extracts provided that the original does not exist (hence we consider it no longer an "extract" from a work but "complete" for our purposes) and it is clearly marked as a quote and distinctly separated (so there is a clear link target), rather than saying it is only permitted if we can find someone who has stripped it out of its surrounding context. MarkLSteadman (talk) 04:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
      In general I would consider the current sourcing deficient, it should at least have an edition and the page number for someone to be able to find the context. Other approaches (LST, redirect to anchor) would also suffice. MarkLSteadman (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
      I agree that linking to such works should be allowed, but these works (if possible) should not be extracted from the works within which they were quoted, they should be added here together with them. Mahomet and His Successors by Irving is in the public domain, so there is not reason why the discussed lines should be extracted from that. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Delete We should always be faithful to the original publication. It is always desirable if a work published only within some other work is not taken out of this publication context. Very exceptionally I can imagine circumstances under which we can be (temporarily) more tolerant, e.g. when the work within which the other work appeared is still not in public domain, while the quoted work has already slipped into the public domain, but this is not our case. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Ophelia’s Song

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as extract. Could not redirect because no suitable target exists.

Extract from Hamlet, with no identification of which edition it comes from. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a version set to music in the Appendix of Shakespeare and Music btw. It wouldn't surprise me if this is somewhere in some anthology under this name but none currently AFAICT. Shakespeare's Songs does not appear to have it. And it appears to be an extract from Walsingham anyways. In summary, I don't think we have any good targets at the moment... MarkLSteadman (talk) 07:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I'd make it a Versions page, linking to Hamlet and Shakespeare and Music - but I'm also fine with deleting it —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Pibroch of Donald Dhu (unsourced)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. No source; two scan-backed copies already present.

Unsourced edition; we have two others that are scan-backed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete, although it should be mentioned that none of the scan-backed versions contains the first stanza of this version. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Various unsourced duplicate works

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted for having no source, and scan-backed copies exist. Those that could be redirected were.

Some poems by Author:Jeanne Marie Bouvier de la Motte Guyon

The following poems are unsourced, and we have scan-backed editions of them in Poems translated from the French of Madame de la Mothe Guion.

Pages are to be replaced with redirects once deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Hop-Frog (unsourced)

Unsourced copy of a work of which we have a sourced edition at Poe's Tales of Mystery and Imagination/Hop-Frog —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Spirits of the Dead (no source)

Unsourced edition of a poem, of which we have a sourced edition at Al Aaraaf, Tamerlane and Minor Poems/Spirits of the Dead —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Lead, Kindly Light (unsourced)

Unsourced edition of a poem, of which we have a sourced edition at Poems That Every Child Should Know/Lead, Kindly Light —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Hail Holy Queen (unsourced)

Unsourced edition of a prayer, of which we have a sourced edition at The Little Book of the Most Holy Child Jesus/Salve Regina —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

 Comment there is a difference in that the unsourced edition uses "you" where the sourced editions use "thee", but I don't think this is significant enough to warrant keeping. We actually have several sourced editions of this work. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Maud (unsourced)

Unsourced edition of a poem, of which we have a sourced edition at Maud, and other poems/Maud —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The New Method of Evaluation as Applied to Pi (unsourced)

Unsourced edition of a work, of which we have a sourced edition at Notes by an Oxford Chiel/The New Method of Evaluation as Applied to π —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

 Comment Apparently I nominated this for deletion previously, but withdrew it because of some minor differences which I no longer consider significant enough to be worth keeping (e.g. punctuation, some minor word changes) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Done Versions page converted to redirect, since only one copy remains. --EncycloPetey (talk)

The Spleen (Finch, unsourced)

Unsourced edition of a work, of which we have a sourced edition at Poems of Anne Countess of Winchilsea 1903/The Spleen —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

This Lime-Tree Bower my Prison (unsourced)

Second-hand edition of a poem, of which we have a sourced and scan-backed edition at Sibylline Leaves (Coleridge)/This Lime Tree Bower My Prison —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Lines on the Mermaid Tavern (unsourced)

Unsourced edition of a poem, of which we have a sourced and scan-backed edition at Keats; poems published in 1820/Lines on the Mermaid Tavern —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

King Pest (unsourced)

Unsourced edition of a short story, of which we have a sourced and scan-backed edition at Poe's Tales of Mystery and Imagination/King Pest —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

St. John's Eve (Gogol, unsourced)

Unsourced edition of a work, of which we have a sourced edition at Stories by Foreign Authors (Russian)/St. John's Eve —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Imitation (no source)

Unsourced edition of a work, of which we have a sourced edition at Tamerlane and other poems/Imitation —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Gulistan

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. Still needs transcription and clean-up via transclusion, but the actual source has been located and a scan-backing effort has been started. The work has been nominated for the MC to expedite cleanup.

An incomplete secondhand transcription, consisting of an Introduction and Chapter 1 only. With no source, this work cannot be completed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete It doesn't match the Arnold translation here Google Books . There are many translations and it would be better to pick a known one and start anew. MarkLSteadman (talk) 08:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 Delete per nom —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Eternal Rest

The following discussion is closed:

deleted; replaced with versions page —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

No source given for this very short work(?). The corresponding Wikipedia article has multiple texts for the English version; ours is the only one not having a reference, and with multiple variations of it given there. With multiple variations in existence, and our copy without a source, I don't see that we should keep it. If someone can find a reference, even if fully quoted, we might save this item. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

To Leigh Hunt, Esq.

The following discussion is closed:

Changed into a redirect

Unsourced duplicate of The complete poetical works and letters of John Keats/To Leigh Hunt, Esq.. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Changed into a redirect. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Several unsourced poems by John Greenleaf Whittier

The following discussion is closed:

Whittier poems moved into containing work; the other has been deleted since two scan-backed copies exist.

Unsourced editions of poems by Whittier, of which we have sourced editions in The Riverside song book.

The sourced edition also includes sheet music, which the unsourced editions do not, but there are no significant differences in the text itself. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

 Comment A Southern Refrain (unsourced) claims to be from The Deserted Bridge and Other Poems, but is not scan backed. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Our Poets of Today

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. Scan backing has begun.

One chapter. No source; no front matter. Mostly without formatting, and partially annotated with links. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Simple enough to replace with the scan here: [9] MarkLSteadman (talk) 07:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Some unsourced editions of stories from Grimm's Household Tales

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as redundant and unsourced.

Unsourced editions of Grimm's fairy tailes, of which we have sourced and scan-backed editions in Grimm's Household Tales, Volume 1:

Also Frederick and Catherine (unsourced) which is a duplicate of Grimm's Goblins (1876)/Frederick and Catherine —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Introductions by Kirsopp Lake without the works they are introductions to

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as redundant extracts.

These introductions are excerpts from translations by Lake; the rest of the work is not here.

—Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

For reference, the original containing work is the Loeb edition of The Apostolic Fathers. 02:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC) MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Index:Commentariesofcj00caesuoft.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. The work is in Latin, with some maps titled in English, some English end notes mixed with Latin text, and a six page introduction that is mostly ramblings by the author. The majority of work done on Wikisource involved blank pages, problematic pages, and unproofread pages of Latin text, which would not be hosted here anyway. The work belongs at la.WS or mul.WS

"Commentaries on the Gallic War (in Latin)" - as stated, the book is mainly in Latin. The partially transcribed document has been deleted as beyond scope. The Index and the pages that have been created should also go. -- Beardo (talk) 04:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

 Keep as per TE(æ)A,ea. It is true the six-page "Introduction" is in English and the main eight-book body (scan pages 19–254) is in Latin, however that is far from 400 pages as the 137-page "Notes" (scan pages 255–392) and the four-page "Index" (scan pages 393–397) appear to also be in English. There is also a sixteen-page set of Claredon Press advertisements (scan pages 399–414) that appear to be in English. So out of 418 scan pages only about 235 of them (substantially less than half) are actually fully in Latin. —Uzume (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Augustus. The life and times of the founder of the Roman Empire (B.C. 63-A.D. 14)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Main page moved to better title, and scan Index page set up. While the work is in scope, the copy-paste contents were incomplete, with sidenotes and other components stripped, and the subpages named at odds with convention. As a result, this work will benefit more from a fresh start than from trying to salvage the work previously done.

Incomplete and abandoned. Quite surprisingly, the text survived a deletion discussion in the beginning of 2022, when it was pointed out that non-scanbacked is not a reason for deletion. However, two years later it is still as incomplete and abandoned as before and so I am renominating it to be deleted. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 Keep We have a backlog of these to work through which means that there will be multiple of these that sit around until someone, eventually, proofs them. Note that the current rate is quite slow (the backlog went from 535 --> 515 in that time). We have other major backlogs to burn down as well, especially IMO more problematic works, I personally would prefer to focus on works that fail criteria such as problematic sourcing / licensing / minimum proofing and formatting first, rather than reopening the incomplete backlog around effort and especially getting into which are "important" to keep and which aren't, where these discussions tend to end up.MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
I should have pointed out that this text is unsourced as well, so it also falls under the criteria suggested above to focus on (i.e. problematic sourcing). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Is something wrong with the scan linked from the page? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
The scan is fine, but it is not the source of the added text. The link goes to a scan in archive.org, where it was uploaded in 2020, while our text is from 2007. The source from which the anon user took the text remains unknown. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Here is a scan uploaded in 2007. Will that work for you? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
I added that link because the previous link was to a DLI version on archive that was deleted. If you prefer we can revert back to keep the link to the original deleted version. MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
The previous link to the scan that was deleted from IA was also added later than the text so we cannot be sure if it was the real source and if it really corresponded. BTW, we have already seen here a few scans from the Digital Library of India uploaded to IA which were copyrighted editions falsified to seem older, and I would not wonder if something similar were the reason of deletion of this file from IA too. So returning the previous link would not solve anything, and neither would simple adding of any other link. The work can be considered sourced by a scan only when our text was actually extracted from that scan, or at least thoroughly checked against it. So now I checked at least the first chapter, and what striked me was the difference between the illustration of some Roman coins in the linked scan, and the illustration at the end of our chapter, which shows a clearly different specimen of the first coin (and none of the others). The same can be noticed about the really different image of young Octavius, clearly taken from some different book. So this chapter seems to be a compilation of a different source for the text and different source(s) for the images.
Look also at the chapter Later Life and Family Troubles, containing just one paragraph of the whole long text (and no illustrations). Our text is just a torso of the work. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 Delete Works that are incomplete and unsourced at the same time are worse for our incoming traffic than just having no page there at all. (And I'd like for it to be located at Augustus (Shuckburgh), but we urgently need that period out of the title in any case because it's not grammatically correct.) SnowyCinema (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Template:numbered div

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. With no replacement available, deletion would be premature.

This template is an overly complex mess. It should be deprecated and replaced with something that actually works properly with modern web standards. In the previous discussion it was also criticised for being poor in respect of acessibility approaches. I spent a good 2 hours trying to come up with a list that formatted like this template does, and could generate an appropriate replacement however. I'm fed up with playing "hunt the quirk" around this template, and thus template needs to go. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  •  Keep. Too premature. Just a short time ago I pointed out a problem how the new templates work with margins, which ShakespeareFan00 has not solved yet, and so this proposal surprised me very much. Here is the illustration of the margin problem. The old template should stay not only until this particular problem is solved, but until we are sure that its replacement will not have any negative effects on any of the pages where it is used. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
    Supposing that {{*/i}} is the one that should be used as an alternative, I have raised some more questions at Template talk:*/i. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Keep That the template is complicated, needs to be replaced and deprecated, may all be true, but they are not reasons for deletion. There must first be a working replacement. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 Delete If we go forward by asking to reproduce complicated behavior and much stricter standards than it is very hard to make progress. The claim is that the current one doesn't work and is not fit for purpose, I don't think we should have "not have any negative effects" as the standard. Templates that do 80% and work are better than templates do not work, absent a specific argument that the functionality is critical. MarkLSteadman (talk) 05:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
The question is not whether we should have one or the other. Btw it is not true that numbered div template does not work: when I needed it, it worked well. Of course we should have the one that does 80% of the work satisfactorily, nobody wants to dismiss it. But for those who are not satisfied with it we can have the other template as well. Otherwise they will try various obscure workarounds to reproduce what they want anyway. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
My wording was "works properly with modern web standards." The template itself functions of course. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 Keep I too think a deletion proposal is premature until such time as the replacement has been developed and deployed although I agree with the nom that the (dis)organization of the various templates and their usage is overly complex and that a modern replacement should be developed (I never liked the /s/e style templates and would prefer something with parameters for such functionality; I do not have a problem with its <div>...</div> based approach but perhaps it can all be wrapped in a single Lua-based Scribuntu module or the like). I am less concerned with a syntactically compatible replacement than with a viable replacement (I am fine with a complicated port to a better future solution). I first recommend deprecating with a comment on how to move to another solution before bringing it back here for deletion. —Uzume (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Por una Cabeza

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Hybrid page combining sources; unclear whether the translation was published or original, and whether it has been released under a compatible license.

Looks like a Wikisource user's translation which is not in accordance with WS:Translations (not based on a scanbacked original) and with WS:WWI (compilation of two English versions and even a non-English version). Moving it to the translation namespace is also being prevented by the fact we do not know under which licence the translator released the translation. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The creator is still active on Wikidata, so it should be possible to find out. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
So I am pinging @Adam Cuerden: to ask if they are willing to bring the work up to our standards, that means especially scanbacking the original at the Spanish Wikisource and tagging the translation with a proper licence. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Why? The uploader was Durova. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
True, Adam was just editing the page a lot. So pinging @Durova:, too. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Durova hasn't edited since 2017, so I think we can safely assume that avenue is closed. Xover (talk) 06:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 Delete. This is an unsortable mess. Xover (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Irish duelling code

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as an extract with no separate source. Recreated as a redirect.

Irish duelling code is part of a backlog of files without a copyright status tag, and also with no asserted source. It appears to be drawn from some derivative of The Code of Honor#35. Since the source and copyright status are not clearly asserted, I think it would be best to simply redirect it. I don't see any significant differences, and if there are differences, it would be a bit of a research project at this point to figure out what they are and why they matter.

There are obvious differences, I got mixed up there. Still, not knowing the source, I'm not sure what the value would be of preserving the derivative work, rather than just starting fresh on this relatively short and simple work if/when the source is found, if it is found to have value beyond the original, and if its copyright status permits its inclusion here. Updated 08:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's a better venue for this suggestion, please let me know or simply move my comment if so. -Pete (talk) 08:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  •  Delete and recreate as a redirect as per nom (the delete first is necessary to break the Wikidata coupling). The source is claimed to be a 1965 book which makes the copyright iffy, and means we can't actually scan-back this. The Irish code duello itself is from 1777 so there should be plenty of unambiguously public domain sources from which we can take it, if we want more copies than the one already in The Code of Honor#35. --Xover (talk) 07:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Index:Poems on Several Occasions, by John Gay (1767 ed.).djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied. Uploader noted that the scan had missing pages and poor scan quality.

I added this in the hope of transcribing a few poems I liked, but on review the source file is so poor, with missing pages and incomplete scans, that it would not be useful to work from. I'll look for another edition-- apologies for wasting peoples' time. FPTI (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Template:Interwiki-info

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as unneeded after all calls to the template had been removed.

This template is used in 700+ pages, but it seems it has stopped doing what it was originally supposed to do. I asked about it at WS:Scriptorium#Template:Interwiki-info without any reaction, so I guess nobody is going to miss it. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Translation:The Kingdom of God Is Within You

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Redundant, since it was a slightly reworded copy of C. Garnett's translation, and not a new translation.

First, it is not a Wikisource translation, but slightly reworded translation by Constance Garnett, which we already have in its original form. This can be verified by simple comparison of both texts, and can be also understood from the note in the header. While we accept Wikisource user's original translations, especially when lacking any other available, I do not think it is the task of Wikisource to try to "improve" translations by other authors (not speaking about the fact that the "improvements" can be dubious).
Secondly, the translation was not done in accordance with WS:Translations, as there is no transcription of the work present in Russian WS. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 Delete per nom. Xover (talk) 07:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Glorious Things of Thee Are Spoken (unsourced)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Unsourced edition redundant to our scan-backed copies.

Unsourced edition of a hymn, which we have a sourced version at Collection of Sacred Hymns/Glorious Things of Thee Are Spoken —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Noting also that although this page links to Hymnary.org as its source, it is not the same edition as the one on Hymnary.org —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 Delete per nom. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 Delete per nom. Xover (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Patimokkha

The following discussion is closed:

speedied as clear violation of copyright policy (free release is exclusively noncommercial) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

In 2005 an IP on the talk page identified this translation as being written by a monk who was born in 1949, and questioned whether this has ever been dedicated to the public domain. No response in about 18 years. I believe simply deleting it would be the wisest choice, unless somebody has or can find information that refutes that claim. -Pete (talk) 04:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

For free distribution only.
You may print copies of this work for your personal use.
You may re-format and redistribute this work for use on computers and computer networks,
provided that you charge no fees for its distribution or use.
Otherwise, all rights reserved.

From here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Perfect, that's a clear violation of our copyright policy. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians

The following discussion is closed:

Kept by consensus.

Just a copypaste from http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181 . As it has been discussed a few times recently, WS is neither a mirror site of other webs nor their archival site, such as web.archive. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

This is the type of "born digital" work under discussion. But aren't like, say. all supreme court decisions posted in PDF in the same boat at that point to? If we aren't the Kremlin's archive why should we be the POTUS or SCOTUS or Congress's or Her Majesty's Government? Is it only because there isn't a download as PDF link? MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Most of those examples are published in dead tree format, of which the PDFs are a scan (well, often produced from the same master rather than a literal scan). They are also published, by a distinguishable publisher, as a fairly standard book. These we have both tools, policies, and established practices to deal with, and our value proposition is clear. The text in question in this thread is a web page, hosted on a web site. It is dynamic in nature, and its layout changes as the website changes its stylesheet. We cannot sensibly reproduce its layout (in fact we lack several elements from the published version, because the contributor chose to ignore them as irrelevant and instead extracted what they decided was most important). There is no stable (fixed) source against which we can verify our text using our tooling (Proofread Page), except by seriously questionable approaches like producing a faux "scan" by printing the web page to PDF. The only way we can have a stable reference is by archiving the real source on Internet Archive (whose fidelity is often poor specifically due to the dynamic nature of web pages). At which point, what real value do we provide over simply linking the snapshot at Internet Archive?
And there is a giant slippery slope problem here too: if we permit web pages—for which it is impossible to, say, require scans etc.—how do we regulate someone wanting to cut&paste every single press blurb or whatever on kremlin.ru? Or for a million other such web sites? For example the multiple asian countries where it has become de rigeur for officials to use SEO and sites like ours for boosting their visibility (i.e. pure self-promotion). How about when some controversial figure (none mentioned to avoid stepping into a political quagmire, but there are plenty to choose from in any political, social, or cultural persuasion) figures out that all they need to do is slap a CC tag on their twitter feed and their followers can bot add their every tweet here? Or a blogger... Or a youtuber... or podcaster... or...
We have already had extremist writers that have gotten their thinly-veiled propaganda published in a hyper-local newspaper and then tried to shoehorn that into getting their stuff hosted here. Poets that have found a way to get their stuff uploaded on poetry.com (and other open sites) and then tried to leverage that to get their poems hosted here. We've had any number of authors trying to leverage self-publishing (i.e. lulu.com) to get free web hosting forever here. We've partly managed to stave off these through our existing policies (previous publication by a reputable publisher, copyright, etc.). But those policies all assume we can rely on traditional book or newspaper or magazine publishers to be our gatekeepers, and on the cost of paper printing and distribution to weed out the chaff. Even with those barriers we still get stuff like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion that manage to slip past (and we therefore do host multiple copies of this text). But for classes of texts (or videos, or...), like web pages, where there is no traditional publisher (anyone can be a publisher), and were creation and distribution is effectively free, and in a world where notoriety is easily leveraged into notability, none of these mechanisms work anymore.
We can try to say stuff like "This web page is hosted by a government", but governments are notoriously bad about creating and maintaining web sites, and the previously mentioned mechanisms mean propagandist or merely populist governments will be functionally equivalent to our hypothetical CC-licensed trolling influencer.
This is not an argument pro or con the specific text under discussion in this thread—so apologies for the tangent—but rather more in the nature of explaining why treating the United States Reports as equivalent to a web page on kremlin.ru is deeply problematic without figuring out all these issues in some way first. Xover (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Pretty soon the only reason bound printed volumes of any of these works like the Federal Register or the United States Reports or scientific journals will exist is that someone can have a copy somewhere on a shelf in an archive. But that is already tenuous, no one is ordering volumes from bookstore.gpo.gov and scanning them for upload here. The significance of the print versions is dwindling, I am not even sure the January 6th committee final report had a version you could order from the GPO (for example Harvard lists only the Harper and Celadon), as opposed to the GPO version of the 9/11 Commission report having a large print run. MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
I will also point out that the Russian version of this essay is available in a print version from the Russian State archives: https://statearchive.ru/1668. MarkLSteadman, as well as a more minimally formatted version under the "transcripts" portion as opposed to the "news" portion of the website. [[10]]] (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
"We cannot sensibly reproduce its layout"? We can exactly reproduce an HTML document. Style sheets are basically defined as the stuff that doesn't matter. This is wildly opposed to scanned works, where there is no separation of content and form, and at their most frustrating make cunning use of lines and pages; let's see us do a work that has prose indexed by line numbers on one page, and a translation or running notes on the facing page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 Keep - this essay has an entire Wikipedia article several sections long that was written about it, so clearly it has a good amount of historical notability. And I'd consider this kind of notability an exception to most of my principles regarding whether or not a work should be kept.
Beyond that, I think that in general the works of such a prolific political figure like the current Russian president are significant enough to world history to warrant their inclusion. And since there seems to be no reasonable option for a scan, I think this can exist here as a born-digital work. SnowyCinema (talk) 00:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: Regardless of interpretations of the policies mentioned there, what we have here is a document that is clearly widely referenced in the context of modern global politics. It is (as I understand it from skimming) a summation of Putin's views on Ukrainians and the situation in Ukraine, something that is perhaps key to those trying to understand motivations behind his political actions on this front. The essay also doesn't read like a blog post or a Twitter post or something that was intended to be exclusive to a webpage; it reads like a formal essay written by an aristocrat that probably appeared in writing before being released. (Of course this is no defense for his views on my part, as I am very much against Russia's authoritarian and intrusive war efforts—this just an analysis of the wording and language of the essay.)
And as I consider the purpose of the "no webpages" rule to weed out insignificant user-generated clutter like random blog posts, this certainly does not fall under that paradigm, as evidenced by the existence of the Wikipedia article.
Also consider that that very Wikipedia article had 8,771 page views this month, and our Wikisource entry for it has over 1K views this month. So, you might infer that about 1 in every 10 people (or so) who read the Wikipedia article visited Wikisource afterwards. That is quite an incredible and rare feat for a Wikisource page to have in general since the average page here gets, what, 1 page view a month? Not even kidding about that btw, it's incredibly sad. So deleting this transcription would really, honestly, be extremely detrimental to the Wikisource project, since these kinds of popular materials are exactly the kinds of things we need to get traffic flowing in. And that traffic is really something we lack as a community. So are we going to risk that, just because of an eye-dotting (and even debatable) interpretation of a policy? If policy agrees with you (which I'm not necessarily willing to concede), then the policy itself is harmful and should be overruled. SnowyCinema (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: I see nothing in that section to support your assertion. And many of our governmental publications are pulled from digital sources now because that's how world governments are publishing them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
I would also just mention that "no value" is subjective once we get to modern texts with built in high quality text layers. For example the ability to link to multiple works from a single author page or the ability for, say, a book by a Ukrainian to link to this, to the ability to link to any documents mentioned. For example if we have a translation of the full mentioned work mentioned in this portion: "The Tale of Bygone Years captured for posterity the words of Oleg the Prophet about Kiev, “Let it be the mother of all Russian cities.“, "In the 16th century, it signed the Union of Lublin...", "In its 1649 appeal to the king of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth..." But any such wiki link requires having the text. MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
By subjective, I mean that YMMV, nothing more than that our policies permit such linking which some may find valuable and if you find them a distraction and net negative or de minimus that's a perfectly reasonable stance too
(or as mentioned having WP link to this version versus an archive.org copy of the Kremlin version). MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
@MarkLSteadman: This would not be a net negative in any sense of the word. In fact the hard statistical evidence that I provided earlier says the exact opposite—the topic is notable enough to have a lengthy and widely-visited Wikipedia article, and a quite massive fraction of the views from that article are going to us, which we would lose if we deleted this. It's rare enough that we get 1K views a month on anything, let alone for that 1K to be a significant fraction of Wikipedia's total.
Also, as mentioned, the essay has been widely quoted and used in many, many other sources which are themselves notable and on the forefront of public discourse in their own right (like the primary news outlets of entire countries), so this is certainly no random-Tumblr-post-esque situation. Which again I must reiterate, is the purpose of the "no web pages" rule... We just want to make sure people don't come and dump their Twitter feeds here, and that's literally all I'm concerned about with it.
This clearly adds value, in fact objectively, demonstrably so. SnowyCinema (talk) 09:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
We are not in disagreement. My point is that even if, say. Jan personally would never look on WS as opposed to going to Google, or reading this directly on a government website or what not, or finds no / minimal value in any of those other activities I mentioned, others clearly do find it valuable. The hosting such a work provides no value position isn't a unique opinion, from the start of the discussion on born-digital texts recently: "the crux of the issue for me: for born-digital texts, Wikisource and our tools and practices add no or very little value, and almost always require some level of compromise to our standards or approaches." MarkLSteadman (talk) 09:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Which discussion, unfortunately, petered out without really bringing us anywhere. We have got to figure out how to deal with all the different classes of born-digital works because the number of them that are in some way relevant to us is growing extremely rapidly and we can't keep dealing with them case by case, and with everyone participating coming at it from different philosophical directions. This is unsustainable in terms of content curation, and it's a recipe for creating bitterly divisive schisms in the community. I have no idea what, specifically, to do about it or how to move the issue forward, but I think it's important we try to evolve some kind of functioning policy for this. Xover (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree completely, without some statement somewhere to point to it will be subjective (i.e. every contributor's own view on the matter) causing these issues (e.g a strong view of what the various current related existing policy statements mean). MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral: If we really had a hard (and enforced) "no webpages" rule I would be inclined to support SnowFire's reasoning for this text as in favour of an exception to the general rule. But since we don't actually have a functioning framework for this I am extremely sceptical of allowing anything that isn't squarely from the dead-trees era, and especially for anything first and only published as a web page. I'd have no hesitation if some more or less reputable publisher collected this and other of the author's essays and published it as a physical book. But for the current situation I don't want to support permitting / keeping anything that will make the problem worse in the long run. Which, being a pretty annoying reason for a delete vote, leads me to drop a useless but hopefully at least less frustrating neutral !vote instead. --Xover (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
@Xover: These are fair contentions (even though you got me mixed up with SnowFire, hahaha!)—but I do want to note that the crux of my argument is not necessarily related to the fact that this is a born-digital text. It's more that, given the page view statistics and the notability of the topic, I would have been inclined to keep this no matter which dubious or contentious umbrella it may fall under. So, for this particular work (and any other like it), I think it would be a net negative to the project to delete it, since we would lose considerable traffic. I do agree that we need to come to some kind of conclusion with born-digital texts, but I don't claim to have the absolute answer to that.
In that debate, I will stand by that I think (generally) that documents (essays, edicts, and the like) linked directly to federal government agencies or officials should probably fall under the umbrella of what's accepted, no matter the form. Government documents have a clear usefulness, and are very likely to be notable in some right. SnowyCinema (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Ad traffic: While I agree that once we decide that some text is worthy to be hosted here for various reasons, we should host it no matter whether it originally served as somebody's successful propaganda, I am opposed to the reverse argumentation, i.e. using the fact that some propaganda attracts a lot of people as an argument for hosting the propaganda, and thus intentionally becoming one of its useful helpers. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't think traffic is a useful metric, except as a very secondary data point. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, some of the worst dross out there gets lots and lots of clicks by—for that very purpose—being deliberately controversial. Treating clicks as a primary metric means privileging click-bait.
A government agency can be a very good "reputable publishers" (for the purposes of a "previously published by a reputable publisher" assessment), but even otherwise reputable agencies push out a concerning proportion of dross once we're in "web" land, and not all governments (and hence their agencies) are particularly "reputable". We have examples of government agencies being turned into promotional vehicles for senior officials, and there are sadly many current examples of government agencies acting as pure propaganda and disinformation agents. Xover (talk) 07:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
I mentioned above, the Russian version (with a bunch of documents) was published in a print run by the Russian State Archives: https://statearchive.ru/1668. There is a fixed form of the Russian version. MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Given Xover’s concerns, with which I generally agree, I think that the lack of a policy in regard to Web-sites means that this should be included provisionally, with a later review (under new policy terms) at some later point. For example, I think a future review of all content originating on Web-sites would not be so onerous as our current review of works without license templates. I also agree with SnowyCinema’s arguments in favor of this work being an exception; certainly, we should do all we can to include the text of an essay so notable as to have a Wikipedia article. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep We live in a digital age, where publishing that would be done in print is done electronically. We need to roll with it. It also seem weird to pick on this one; we have Joe Biden's Third State of the Union Address sourced digitally, for example. What's the difference here?--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
    As far as I understand it, since it exists in the CR version [11] which in principle I can buy in a print version [12] it is now "fixed" and no longer a web page. Separately, for speeches, such as this Address by President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy to the US Congress sourced to [13] could be considered "fixed" and immutable as delivered, someone could compare against the recorded version. MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
I will also point out that it is included in the ICC docket tracker https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/tt382m/ in a persistent form as well. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Aladdin;Or The Wonderful Lamp (Sir Richard Burton)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. No source; apparent extract.

What brought this to my attention was exactly how bad the title is, and I was just going to move it, but then I saw the horrendous formatting as well. We have several scan-backed versions of Aladdin, so we certainly don't need this unsourced version cluttering up the search results for "Aladdin". SnowyCinema (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

It is also an extract from the 3rd supplemental / 13 volume [14]. MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Though that uses the spelling Alaeddin, and has different paragraph breaks etc.. -- Beardo (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Which is the problem with unsourced texts. Is this e.g. [15] or some other reediting? We have no clue which edition of The Arabian Nights this is from (is that supposed to the name as opposed to Selections from ...?). If it is some reediting, does that make it misleading to call it "Richard Burton"?  Delete and start afresh. MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Exactly -  Delete as per Mark. -- Beardo (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 Delete as above. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 02:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Module:Wikidata and Module:Wikibase

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

Old, deprecated, and very obsolete Wikidata access modules, now finally completely replaced by Module:WikidataIB. Xover (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 16:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 Delete per nom, although there is also Module:Wd as a replacement too (since Module:WikidataIB is more focused on InfoBoxes). —Uzume (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Internal Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Abdullah Almalki, Ahmed Abou-Elmaati and Muayyed Nureddin

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Incomplete work with copyright incompatible for hosting on Wikisource.

Long-abandoned incomplete work. Also, it is tagged as {{Legislation-CAGov}}, but it is not a legal enactment or court decision so this license does not apply, so it is probably copyvio as well. —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete The source document claims Crown Copyright so not acceptable for hosting until 2058. MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Letter from Pabi to Akhnaton

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Extract, but also altered from the publication.

This translation is an extract from Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament (1912). We have some recent precedent for deleting extracted translations of quoted works. —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Tide Haes Its Mantle Awa'-pit

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. No source, no translator information, and no license.

This appears to be a translation of Le temps a laissié son manteau into Scots. It has no source and no translator information. —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Śivapurāna

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Fragment of translation without source; also copyvio, since the author died in 1985.

Abandoned partial translation without a source. —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The source is "[16]" copyright Delhi 1970 [17] so URAA restored since Shastri died in 1985 [18].  Delete. MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Revolutionary Catechism

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Translation with no source nor translator, and therefore likely copyvio.

Incomplete text copied from an incomplete digital version with no source (see its Talk page). Both our copy and the "original" are missing the start of the document, as evidence by the start of the list at item number II. Both copies are also a translation with no credited translator, and therefore of uncertain copyright status. The scan from IA that was linked from our page as a possible "source" is also missing item number I., and that scan also has no information about where it came from, no information about the publisher, and no credited translator. It looks like a recent digital creation using a word processor, and not a scan of an 1866 publication. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Looked at the sourcing and agree with the suspected CV.  Delete The standard source is Sam Dolgoff, copyright 1971. MarkLSteadman (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Alphabetical lists of works

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Incomplete and not maintained or updated for years.

There are three hopelessly incomplete pages with alphabetical lists of works:

Although the three pages were created as early as 1915 2013, there are still just these three, other letters do not have such lists. They are not categorized. They are not linked from anywhere except from each other and from some discussion pages. People do not add there new works, they are just a maintenance burden (continuous link-fixing, removing deleted works etc.). They were suggested to be deleted in 1917 2017 but after practically nobody participated in the discussion, they were kept with a note that they should be bot-maintained in future, which has still not happened (in seven years from that time).

Because in their current form they are only a useless burden, I suggest their deleting. If somebody decides to make a bot-maintained version in the future, they can be founded anew anytime. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nomination. Looks like they were created in 2013, not 1915 :D -Pete (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 Delete - extremely difficult to maintain even if we did respect the listing project a bit more. If we have a listing like this, it should be provided by the backend and not any kind of frontend technology like a bot. Maybe there are Special pages that do something similar?
A similar issue: It also makes me wonder about the whole author initial situation at pages like Wikisource:Authors-B etc. While these do appear to be maintained better than what's currently under discussion, the author initial pages still suffer from the same problem—an impossible-to-maintain project for little actual benefit, especially since it wastes the time of editors trying to maintain it. There are probably millions of theoretical authors that would fit our requirements and could be put there, so then we have to start considering subpages of these, then subpages of subpages, and whatnot. So far, entries seem to have only been added by individual editors, which I see as a huge red flag for something as vast as this. It should at least be bot-maintained, but I maintain (if you will) that even if that were happening it would still be a fundamentally unsustainable situation, since any user owning a bot could leave suddenly and decide no longer to maintain it.
(I do understand that sorting authors by surname has its difficulties that we haven't necessarily figured out yet, and that our author headers have been relying on the initials system for over a decade, but it's a practice we should probably figure out how to change in the long term.) SnowyCinema (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 Comment FWIW, the only things the last_initial parameter does are link to the author initial indexes and categorize within Category:Authors by alphabetical order; it would be straightforward to alter that behavior in Module:Author if desired. (This is getting pretty far afield from the original topic, but are the initial categories, Category:Authors-Aa and so forth, actually easier to work with than just having one category sorted by surname and an index template with pagefrom links?) —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 03:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 Delete as above. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 02:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

A Passionate Pilgrim (Project Gutenberg edition)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Secondhand transcription, redundant to copy hosted on Wikisource.

Second-hand transcription for which we have a scan-backed version at A Passionate Pilgrim and Other Tales (Boston: James R. Osgood & Co., 1875)/A Passionate Pilgrim (horrible page name aside). We also have multiple transcription projects set up on the (also somewhat excessively detailed) versions page, so we're not hurting for options here. Xover (talk) 09:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom. As mentioned there are some fidelity concerns as well, better to start with one of the known editions if someone wants an alternative text version. MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Index:Japan, its history, arts, and literature (1901 V3).pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. Different edition from the one we have, so not redundant.

One volume of eight-volume set, already proofread here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Keep These are two different editions of the same work, as evidenced by Page:Japan, its history, arts, and literature (1901 V3).pdf/15 and Page:Brinkley - Japan - Volume 3.djvu/19. Any attempt to reconcile one as a facsimile of the other should be done with page-namespace redirects (process pending). SnowyCinema (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
@TE(æ)A,ea.: In practical terms, you might be right, especially granting your assumption that the other volumes in this "edition" were never published and are not connected.
But, this discussion is going to be considered in my broader brainstorming on how to include facsimile content on the site. I suspect the entire eight-volume set was reproduced (in all volumes) for whatever newer edition this was, but maybe I'm wrong. Specifically replicating multi-volume facsimiles (esp. MVFs where some volumes are missing from the set) may be more difficult than with works that were only facsimiled in one volume (such as Thunder on the Left with the original 1925 novel and its 1926 and 1936 facsimiles).
So, I don't think deleting this index, until we have a more robust system for dealing with these sorts of editions, will necessarily be harmful. My "keep" vote is more a theoretical "keep", since I do think it has value in the long-term, but only on the condition that my desires with it are met, which I don't know how to do for the time being.
(This reminds me a lot of Index:Stella Dallas (c. 1925).pdf, an exact facsimile of the original novel except with many stills added from the film adaptation. My plan with this would be to redirect the pages that are facsimiled, but to proofread the images and most of the front matter. A work like this is useful since film stills like these are valuable to the broader research area of film history.) SnowyCinema (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
A system for facsimiles is underway: Category:Facsimiles. SnowyCinema (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment This index has had no proofreading completed. I would say keep it only if someone actually intends to complete this volume. But if neither the person who created the Index page nor the person who set up the contents has any desire to do any work, then this Index is useful and would be better deleted. I say this because we have had new contributors stumble into incomplete Index pages, enthusiastically work through many pages, but end up crestfallen when they discover it's a close (or exact) duplicate of another scan. Since this does have another completed scan in existence, I would rather not leave this around for someone else to fall into that trap. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
    • EncycloPetey: This is the reason why I nominated Index:The trail of the golden horn.djvu (as a batch) earlier (of which this was one index created by that user): the indexes are not connected to a portal or author that could help new users find them, so they are completely useless in that respect, and they have a large maintenance burden if people use the pages (copied directly from Project Gutenberg) as the basis of proofreading. (Incidentally, I have finished making the list of indexes; it is here.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
    But that work is neither a duplicate nor likely to be. Nor has this Index been filled with bot-generated page text. This situation is not analogous to that one. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
    • EncycloPetey: From the prior discussion, it seems that the text layer importation was only justified as a deletion rationale as to the pages, although I supported the justification as to the indexes as a whole. However, those other indexes have the same problem as this index, namely, a lack of connection to portal and author pages. The problem in those cases and in this case, separate from the already transcribed set, is that there is no versions information provided, which is a further problem. Ideally, for any given work, an editor seeking to proofread a work would want to find the best edition of the work and then start transcribing. With an author, portal, or versions page, versions and scans (or indexes) can be identified. These indexes have no connection to any such pages, and are thus of negative utility and should be deleted en masse. I made a similar argument as to The Trail of the Golden Horn and the other indexes. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
      The reason that something else was nominated for deletion is irrelevant to this discussion. A lack of links is also not a reason for deletion; we can simply add the appropriate links. And we have never limited ourselves to just one edition of a work; it's why we have versions pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

John McCain Concession Speech and works of president-elect Obama

The following discussion is closed:

Closed. Nominations withdrawn and / or posted to Wikisource:Copyright discussions.

I doubt this work is compatible with the Wikisource copyright policy. It seems plausible that the anonymous uploader, and HFWang~enwikisource who worked on the page, may have erroneously assumed that {{PD-USgov}} would apply. But this speech was made in McCain's capacity as a candidate, not as a functionary of the U.S. federal government. Normal copyright would apply unless it was explicitly released under a free license or dedicated into the public domain. The same reasoning would apply to Barack Obama's 2008 election victory speech. -Pete (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The press conferences of the incoming Obama administration are similar; I'm not sure whether there is a specific provision of U.S. copyright law that designates a president-elect's creations to the public domain, so I'm less sure about these ones. Notifying @Tonyfuchs1019: who created some of these pages.

-Pete (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The president-elect is a bit more complicated, some transition records are government records and some are private: https://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/memos/ac09-2017 and thus it gets into what and what are not presidential records. https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-records.html, e.g. Presidential records include: " includes any documentary materials relating to the political activities of the President or members of the President’s staff, but only if such activities relate to or have a direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President;" while "materials relating exclusively to the President’s own election to the office of the Presidency; and materials directly relating to the election of a particular individual or individuals to Federal, State, or local office, which have no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President." And PETT records might become records. E.g. if Obama was announcing his cabinet picks at the press conference that may become part of the agency records and enter the public domain. MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that's great info; I suspected things like that might be in play. To be more explicit, I propose:
(1) and (2) We !vote on whether the first two items above, the speeches, should be deleted or kept, and if kept, what copyright templates they should carry; and
(3) We should determine the copyright status, and the legal basis thereof, of the press conferences, and mark them as such. On this one, I'm pretty sure the CC license templates they have are inaccurate; it's possible they are OK, as I'm pretty sure the Obama administration did use CC licenses to some degree (Code for America was pretty involved in his campaign), but I don't see any links or evidence suggesting that is the case. -Pete (talk)
If there are copyright concerns, then this should be listed at Wikisource:Copyright discussions instead of here. This page is for deciding deletion only, not resolving copyright status. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree with this. The two speeches should be moved. The Press Conference may be suitable here per the ongoing discussion of digital works that has come up elsewhere on this page. MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: This makes good sense, sorry for using this venue wrong. What's the best way forward? I could, for instance, retract #2 and #3 and then start discussions at "copyright discussions" about them instead. #1, which is what got me here to begin with, seems pretty clear-cut, so I'm inclined to leave that one here. Does that sound right? @MarkLSteadman: I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by "the two speeches should be moved." Do you mean #1 and #2 in my numbering scheme? (I think all of these could be described as speeches.) What do you mean by "moved" -- you mean, the discussions about them should be moved? I'm not necessarily opposed, but again I do feel that the first speech is rather clear-cut. If I'm wrong and there's nuance to consider, I'm fine with moving the discussion...if that's what you mean. -Pete (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth Correct. #1 and #2 per your numbering should be closed here and opened up in Wikisource:Copyright discussions. #3 (the press conferences) I personally feel has been settled per my comment below from a copyright statement (change.gov had a CC-BY release statement per the previous discussion mentioned). MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

1. McCain speech

2. Obama speech

3. Obama press conferences

Withdrawn, see: WS:Copyright discussions#Content related to 2008 U.S. presidential election -Pete (talk) 03:48, 27 February 2024‎ (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Akhtar Aly Kureshy & Category:Authors-Akhtar Aly Kureshy

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied as copyright violations.

I'm not sure what to do with these pages. They appear to be in the wrong namespace, but the content is speeches for which Pakistan PD is claimed. But that's 50 years pma, which doesn't apply. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

 Delete possibly self published, and out of scope anyways. MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

For a Single Word

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. No source, and apparently not the translator stated.

No source and no license. In particular, I can find nothing about the translator "M. S. Morozov". The only other versions of this text I could find [19] [20] [21] are ultimately copied from ours, rather than the other way around. —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

It looks to be similar to the Maude translation from 1927 in Russian Tales. "I was drinking tea this winter in a cook-shop where I am known. It was four o'clock in the afternoon, and being a regular customer a newspaper was as usual handed to me as a special mark of respect. (Maude)" vs. "I happened to be drinking tea this winter in a cook-shop where I am known. It was four o'clock in the afternoon, and being a regular customer, a newspaper was as usual handed to me, as a special mark of respect (M. S. Morozov)." MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
There appears to be a 1908 version of the Maude translation published in the October issue of the Grand Magazine (named Grand Magazine of Fiction at the time) under the "For a Single Word." I wonder if that is the source? MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Abu ibn Hajjaj untitled poem, Ibn Zuraiq untitled poem, and Abu'l-Qasim Suri untitled poem

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Extracts from a larger work, and one not present on Wikisource.

Exerpted translations from The Table-Talk of a Mesopotamian Judge (1922) —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete SnowyCinema (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

War Song of Dinas Vawr

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Extract from The Misfortunes of Elphin.

extract from The Misfortunes of Elphin (1829) —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC) —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Privilege of Pope Alexander III to Henry II

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Extract from Hull's History of Ireland.

extract translation from A History of Ireland (1931) —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 16:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom. MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Brut (Caligula)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Long-abandoned, woefully-incomplete transcription with no backing scan from which to continue.

An extremely tiny portion of the multi-volume poem Brut, abandoned since 2009. —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 21:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC) —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 21:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Petrarch's Canzoniere 164 Special:PermaLink/13836111

The following discussion is closed:

Revisions deleted. Not the claimed text, and possible copyvio.

Propose to revdelete the above-linked revision and the (original) revision before it. 2009 IP page creation, text used bears almost no resemblance to the attributed 1557 translation (but does seem fairly similar to a 1996 translation). Might be a copyvio, might be original work; probably best to remove. -Pete (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

 Delete revision. SnowyCinema (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Author:Athelstan

The following discussion is closed:

Issues resolved. Thanks, @Beleg Tâl.

I don't think he merits an author page because he doesn't appear to have written anything. He has been written about extensively, and as king he certainly commissioned people to write documents, but if he ever authored anything substantial it isn't around today. Cremastra (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

This website discusses six texts written by (or attributed to) Æthelstan, so this author page is fine :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Here's a scan containing Æthelstan's writings in both the original Old English and translated into Modern English, if anyone is interested in taking it on —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 Comment For kings this early, edicts, laws, and codes are attributed to them, even if they were drafted by their subordinates. There is a sizeable body of legal documents bearing his mark. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Cremastra (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The Percy Anecdotes

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Unformatted copydump of volume 7 (out of 20). Scans exist for most of the 20 volumes, but they have yet to be transcribed.

Just copypasted raw OCR including headers and pagenumbers breaking the text flow. Besides, it is not the whole text of the The Percy Anecdotes, as the title suggests, but only the 7th volume. There is an index of this volume that can be proofread at Index:The Percy Anecdotes - Volume 7.djvu. I do not think there is a value of keeping this raw OCR, it seems better to start the potential proofreading process from scratch. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 Delete per nom SnowyCinema (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Military Specialists and the Red Army

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as excerpt.

Just an unsourced excerpt. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

 Delete as an excerpt. SnowyCinema (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Pseudodoxia Epidemica An Alphabetical Table

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Unsourced text, with implication that it it was user compiled and edited.

Unsourced text which cannot be found anywhere. I suspect it was compiled by the anon contributor who added it here, judging by the fact that after they added the text they reworded it and wrote in the summary "hopefully of some use to scholars in future". -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

 Delete because of dubious sourcing. SnowyCinema (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Castillian treaties

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. Contains at least one suitable work.

Has been empty since at least April 2023, we appear to have no texts on the subject. I think there is no need to keep this category. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 00:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

 Keep This would appear to in fact be a Castilian treaty, so I reinstated the category. SnowyCinema (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Easter Island (unknown)

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied as redundant to a scanbacked version.

Redundant to the scanned version available here: Weird Tales/Volume 12/Issue 6/Easter Island MarkLSteadman (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Ozymandias of Egypt

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied as redundant to a scanbacked version.

Multiple other versions under Ozymandias (Shelley), this particularly unsourced version is entirely redundant with Poems That Every Child Should Know/Ozymandias of Egypt, including the notes. MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Authors of Arise O Compatriots, Nigeria's Call Obey

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Authors with no known hostable works.

The song Arise O Compatriots, Nigeria's Call Obey was recently deleted as copyvio (see WS:CV#Arise O Compatriots, Nigeria's Call Obey). Its authors, who are not notable for any other work, should be deleted also.

—Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC) —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

-  Delete - indeed. -- Beardo (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Though per w:Babatunde Ogunnaike, he has published various works and has a US patent, which I think would be a work eligible for wikisource - no ? -- Beardo (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, if US patents are in the public domain, and someone wants to upload his patent to enWS, then we can definitely keep his author page —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 Delete. It is not really probable somebody will add the patent. If so, the page can be recreated easily. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Index:NOAA Storm Events Database – 2023 Matador tornado

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied as created in error.

Created accidentally (unneeded because the text doesn't come from a file but from a website). Cremastra (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

McCormack–Dickstein Committee

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Annotated compilation without backing scan, and containing lengthy passages noted as not being present in the scan, and with no known source for those passages.

Compilation. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Probably should be converted into a portal linking the various pieces. If that seems like an acceptable resolution to you I can work on moving them this week. MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
@MarkLSteadman: Thanks, that is a preferred solution, of course. Only the red text is not available in any sources and was added there nobody knows where from, so unless its source is found, the red text should probably be deleted anyway. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The Sea View

The following discussion is closed:

Nomination withdrawn.

This page has been marked unsourced and without copyright info. I was expecting to tag it {{PD-old}}; however, I did find a poem with this title by Charlotte Smith in a first lines index, but its text is completely different. The first line of Smith's poem is "The sea view...from the high down called the Beacon Hill, near Brighthelmstone..." With no source and likely a mismatch, I suggest deletion is the best course. -Pete (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  •  Keep This is her Sonnet LXXXIII, which I can find in Elegaic Sonnets and Other Poems (1797). It sounds as though you searched the first lines index looking for the title rather than for the first line of the poem. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    Great. I actually did several searches at IA, I wasn't specifically trying to find it by first lines, but I misunderstood the results of my search. Thanks for clarifying, happy to consider this closed. -Pete (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    Procedural question -- is it true, that there is no notion of a "speedy keep" as part of Wikisource's practices? In a case like this where the original nominator (me) simply missed some info, and readily concedes the point, it seems silly to keep the discussion open and invite the continued attention of other Wikisourcers (a valuable resource), and also to keep a banner on the page itself, for multiple weeks. -Pete (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    If you, as the person who started the thread, is satisfied with the evidence found, then you can state plainly that you are satisfied that evidence indicates it should be kept, and withdraw the recommendation to delete. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    OK, consider it done. Thank you! Unless I misunderstood (always possible), I've been discouraged from doing that elsewhere, but it does seem like the best course. -Pete (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    @Pete: In cases like this, just say clearly in a comment something like "I withdraw the nomination." If you think it might be appropriate to "speedily" close the discussion, that's also something you can spell out in a comment. And you can try to get an admin to action that in all the normal ways one does in a discussion (e.g. in the CV thread you link, feel free to post a reminder; or even, in that thread, ping me directly; etc. Heck, if you think it's me specifically who has dropped the ball, feel free to nag me on my talk page; I appreciate such reminders.).
    But the policy gives minimum discussion times (two weeks for copyright issues, one for non-copyright discussions) and in that period it is the community's privilege to decide what to do, so any admin closing sooner is doing so under the general leeway admins have to make independent calls and on the presumption that the community will not object.
    In this particular thread it looks like "nominator made a mistake" which could be good enough reason absent other factors. But an admin will have to actually assess that just as with a normal close. It sounds like EncycloPetey has looked at this in enough detail that they might be willing to do that (if they agree that it can be reasonably closed out of policy, of course). But while I have no objection to that, I am also not comfortable doing so myself because I haven't looked at the issue closely enough. --Xover (talk) 06:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I withdraw the nomination. -Pete (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Cabinet Manual

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copydump. PDF exists that could be used to re-create the work as scan-backed copy.

Badly formatted copydump. Could be recreated by proofreading from this "scan". —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

 Comment That scan is posted at gov.uk, which makes it a digital publication of the UK government. This feels like a potential candidate for the MC. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
(what is the MC?) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
I notice this is marked with a Crown Copyright, which may not be compatible with our licensing. I know Commons would not host the scan, but is it hostable here? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
It is released under the Open Government Licence which is both available here and Commons as {{OGL}}. Is there a particular reason why this work isn't acceptable while the others are? MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Are you looking at the last page of the scan, with the Crown Copyright, or the local license tag that the contributor placed on the work? --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
On the last page: "You may re-use this information free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government license". MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 Delete as a copydump. SnowyCinema (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Telemachus, Friend

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Recreated as redirect.

This unsourced page created by an IP in 2006 appears to be entirely redundant of Heart of the West/Telemachus, Friend, a work whose scan-backed pages have all been proofread. I propose that this one be changed to a redirect, which I will boldly do now, but leaving a note in case there's something I didn't consider. -Pete (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

 Delete and turn into redirect (texts generally need to be deleted first and then recreated as redirects in order to break the connection to their Wikidata item, so we don't get redirects with Wikidata items containing bibliographic metadata for the redirect target). I can't guarantee that the text is from the same edition, but it's close enough that had I noticed this stray when I was proofreading Heart of the West I would have not hesitated to move it into the containing work and replace its contents with transcluded text. Xover (talk) 07:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

A Dream of Armageddon (unsourced)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Unsourced and redundant.

Nominating as redundant to the three other editions we have here A Dream of Armageddon. MarkLSteadman (talk) 12:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom. Xover (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Preface to The Lyrical Ballads

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as unsourced and redundant.

Unsourced extract from Lyrical Ballads; a scan-backed edition is available at Lyrical Ballads (1800)/Volume 1/Preface —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Hypnos (unknown)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Unsourced edition redundant to scan-backed edition.

unsourced edition of a work with a scan-backed edition at Weird Tales/Volume 4/Issue 2/Hypnos —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

In the Moonlight (unsourced)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Unsourced copy redundant to scan-backed edition.

Appears to be redundant to The Complete Short Stories of Guy de Maupassant/In the Moonlight—certainly close enough to merit deletion (and conversion to redirect) —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

 Delete Agreed. I've compared the first page in this diff, the text is almost identical, and varies in ways that do not appear to reflect an authoritative alternate translation. -Pete (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 Delete SnowyCinema (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Conversation between Gotse Delchev and General Danail Nikolayev

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. No source, and apparent user-created translation unsupported by original language text on its native WS. The OCLC for a possible source document was found, but no progress after two months has occurred. If a supporting original scan is transcribed at bg.WS, we can consider restoring this translation.

Supposedly published in Sofia, Bulgaria, in a publication with a Bulgarian title, yet entirely in English. An internet search for the publication turns up nothing, so I do not have access to the claimed source to check. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 Comment It looks like a unsourced user-provided translation (several different works by this author were contributed by this IP from a variety of Bulgarian sources). I don't know how we want to apply the grandfathering exceptions for such a translation if so. MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 Delete. We may think this is the Wikisource user's translation, but at the same time we cannot with certainty rule out other possibilities like copying somebody else's work, unless the user states it is their own work and adds a proper licence to it. Without such a statement we should treat it as we treat other licence-lacking texts with dubious sourcing. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Don’t delete (at least for now) because of the user-translation business. This is, as far as I can tell, a user translation of a few excerpts relating to Delchev. The source definitely exists, however—it is OCLC 831298036. I will try to get ahold of the relevant pages. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

1644 Baptist Confession of Faith

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. No source given, nor found. A different Confession is being scan-backed.

Unsourced copypaste. The text was copypasted here including unformatted numbers referring to notes which were not included, see e. g. Article 3. Probably copied from some internet transcription of this book. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The notes are the scriptural references, as can be seen in the 1644 scan here IA. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Actually, this work is short enough and complete enough that it might be worth salvaging. I'll give it a go. Index is here: Index:1644 Anabaptist Confession of Faith.djvu —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
... but for the sake of formality, I say  Delete this work and replace it with the new transcription once completed (since they are not the same edition) —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
The link to us from the accompanying Wikipedia article will also need to be removed. The article has an image from an edition that is clearly different from the scan you've provided. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Prayer of the Ukrainian Nationalist

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Translation with no source; no original language copy; and some evidence that the work is not yet PD in the US.

Translation with no source text. Omphalographer (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

 Comment User originally created this on the Ukrainian Wikipedia (twice), but it was deleted as unencyclopedic and an uk.wikipedia user directed them to Wikisource (discussion). At least, that's what I understand, I've been relying on machine translation.
 Delete per nomination. Cremastra (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
If a scan-backed version of this work is present at ukWS, then this work can be hosted in Translation space, provided that the original is in the public domain in the USA. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
That's a very convoluted way to say "delete", isn't it? :) Xover (talk) 05:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 Delete, and I am inclined towards speedying this one. This is the contributor's first addition to enWS, and it is problematic on several grounds. They also had a grand total of 4 global edits when I checked, all of which were problematic (they uploaded a AI-generated nationalistic symbol to Commons, currently in process for deletion there). All of which were various kinds of nationalist propaganda (I use the term somewhat neutrally here). All of which gives a pattern of someone trying to use Wikimedia projects to promote a particular cause. If the defects (source, scan, plausible assertion of compatible licensing, etc.) are not cured fairly soon, I therefore suggest we speedy this text and then keep this discussion open as an undelete discussion on the remote chance this text is something that is within scope and compatibly licensed. (I don't have time to follow up on any complicated issues right now, so I'm not going to act myself here). Xover (talk) 05:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
A quick search points to this being written by Osyp Mashchak the late 20's / early 30's (up to 1936, when he was 28). Ukrainian WP has link to publications post war, e.g. this from 1969: https://diasporiana.org.ua/periodika/4635-visnik-oochsu-1969-ch-10-247/. So the original seems unlikely to be PD in the US. MarkLSteadman (talk) 06:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Response to Muawiyah I

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as redundant extract. Recreated as redirect to full translation.

Redundant to the version found in Historical Tales and Anecdotes of the Time of the Early Khalifahs/The faithful Arab and his loving Wife MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Letter to el-Hajjaj bin Yusuf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as redundant. Also, English translation with no source information.

Similarly, this is redundant to the version found in Historical Tales and Anecdotes of the Time of the Early Khalifahs/The sad Tale of the Lovers who died of Love. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The Middle-Class Gentleman

The following discussion is closed:

Kept; no consensus. The nomination was posed as a question, after which two people were in favor of keeping, 2 favoring deletion, and 2 commenting without taking a side.

If you look at the source on Gutenberg, you will see that "Philip Dwight Jones" is listed as both the translator and the ebook producer. I therefore believe that this is a rare instance of a work originally published by Project Gutenberg. Is such a work in scope, or is it doubly out of scope as self-published and second-hand? —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

It's a translation of a public domain work. If it's public domain--which it claims to be--I would keep this along the lines of a Wikisource translation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 Keep I don't see that counts as self-published, and we accept to keep second-hand works from that time, don't we, until we have a better replacement ? -- Beardo (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
There are many public domain translations of this work: from 1672 [22] to modern [23] [24] [25] [26] MarkLSteadman (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
In terms of copyright: This would be a rare case of an original Project Gutenberg transcription, and despite the work being from 2001 and being impossible to fall into the PD naturally, if I'm correctly reading the very complex legal notice at the bottom of every Gutenberg transcription, the terms comply with wiki standards on licensing, allowing free distribution, derivatives, etc. So it seems freely licensed.
However: Although this is a web transcription from a reputable source like Gutenberg, the transcription itself has no particular notoriety (even though the source work does). Most damningly, I believe Gutenberg works are constantly subject to further updates, which would not be in line with our purposes. The text is from 2001, and was last updated on February 7, 2013, giving it 12 years of potential strings of updates. I.e., it may be impossible to ascertain what the most pure version of this transcription is, so we probably shouldn't include it. So,  Delete. SnowyCinema (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 Delete per SnowyCinema. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 Comment There is no evidence that this work is "expected to constantly change over time". There is speculation that many years of changes might have happened, but no evidence of what has actually changed. No one has compared our copy to the 2013 revision in even a cursory fashion to investigate the actual degree of change. It could be a thorough revision different in many respects; it could be an update to formatting tags with no changes to the text; we don't know because no one has looked. Also, no one has mentioned is that our copy is a copydump without the formatting present in the original, such as centering, italics, font sizes, etc. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 Comment For the record, my point was that an Internet-based transcription, with multiple specific edit dates involved, should be assumed to be subject to constant substantial updates unless explicitly proven otherwise (if the page is somehow locked from editing, they make some official statement about no further updates, etc.), for the same reason we disallow pages of wikis as transcriptions. SnowyCinema (talk) 01:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Poems by Emily Dickinson - Second Series

The following discussion is closed:

deleted, and replaced with versions pages —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The following unsourced poems by Emily Dickinson, which now have scan-backed versions in Poems: Second Series (Dickinson) and another in progress in The Complete Poems of Emily Dickinson, should be deleted to make way for {{versions}} pages:

—Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 Delete per nom, i.e. overwrite. SnowyCinema (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Henry William Williamson

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied; accidental creation.

Hello I accidentally published a page for author "Henry William Williamson", I meant to create an author page, but create a normal page instead, please delete. HendrikWBK (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Done, see Author:Henry William Williamson SnowyCinema (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Portal:Pre-1945 State Roads in Florida

The following discussion is closed:

Kept; sources located for the listed documents.

I suggest deleting the laws linked at this portal page. I do believe they are all in the public domain; however, there are many of these pages, they appear to be of minimal significance individually, and it would be a significant project to find and connect them with scanned source materials. I brought this up here in March but there was no discussion. I notified the two users who seemed to have worked on the pages here.

At minimum, if the pages are not deleted, I suggest the pages should all have their titles changed to something more descriptive. -Pete (talk) 06:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  •  Comment It's not clear to me on what basis these are being nominated for deletion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
    • @EncycloPetey For more background see the above-linked Scriptorium comment. I don't feel strongly that deletion needs to be the outcome (note that I didn't !vote on this one), but it does seem something should be done to bring this content into closer compliance with Wikisource's standards. Came across it while processing a backlog; I'll pose a more specific question on your user talk, as it may be better understood as me trying to learn best Wikisource practices, than as a strong recommendation. -Pete (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
    • EncycloPetey points out that it would be helpful for me to have outlined my efforts to find the source text. On several occasions, I have searched on several randomly selected page titles, as well as chunks of text from the contents of the pages, on archive.org, DuckDuckGo, and Google. I also looked at the Florida Secretary of State website, but it seems that unlike some other states, there is little or no effort there to present historical legislation. (I imagine somebody more familiar with Florida government or history might have better luck, though.) While I did ping @NE2 in my initial comment, I believe they are more active on English Wikipedia; I will reach out to them directly there, in case they have further insights to share. -Pete (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm very conflicted on this one. I generally think we should delete things like this (old dumps of mostly data, with no source, no probability of ever finding anyone with a similar obsession willing to work on it, probably does not correspond cleanly to any actually published work and definitely does not appear here in the context in which it was originally published, etc.). BUT… from the text there it is clear that in this case there actually was a source, and whoever transcribed it at least tried to be fairly faithful to the original. And the very fact that its content is so obscure, in this case, speaks in its favour: where else online is this going to be available, and who other than the original contributor would ever put in the effort to put this online? Xover (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
     Keep. With TE(æ)A,ea.'s awesome job finding scans for these I land solidly on keep. They still need cleanup, migrating to scans, etc.; but for a transcription with no other obvious problems that's not sufficient reason to delete. --Xover (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Each individual law is a complete work, which is based off of sources (the session laws) which can easily be found (especially if you live in Florida). The laws, as laws, are in the public domain in the United States. Pete: The session laws can be found here. The first law, c. 9311, 1923 Sess., starts on p. 367 of the first volume of 1923 Session Laws. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 Keep per Xover and TEA's comments. These are obscure but interesting from a perspective, and were done as a larger project originally intended to be faithful to the originals. Scan-backing them (and cleaning them up a bit) eventually will be great, though. SnowyCinema (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Great find @TE(æ)A,ea.. As a test case I've run AWB on the first few items. These should address the {{no source}} and {{no license}} issues; unless somebody sees a problem with these edits, I'd be happy to withdraw the nomination, and apply these changes to the full list. Here are example edits: special:diff/14057562, special:diff/14057640, and special:PermaLink/14057548. (IMO the page title issue is not so important if the content is otherwise pretty much aligned with Wikisource standards. I don't think that needs to be pursued given that source material has been located.) -Pete (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I've made the changes. I'd be happy to withdraw this nomination if there are no further concerns. (I applied the wrong edit summaries of one of my AWB tasks, so that adding the PD tag is labeled as adding a source -- sorry for the confusion.) I do think there's probably a better naming scheme that would be more informative, but that's not really a discussion for Proposed Deletions, nor do I have a clear proposal for that, so I'm happy to let that part go; the pages all have links, and PD banners. -Pete (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC) (pinging @Xover as the only person so far in the discussion who might be leaning "delete")
@Peteforsyth: No reason to withdraw the proposal: the issue has been brought to the community and the community is collectively deciding what to do with it. So long as your current stance is clear somewhere in the thread that's all that's needed. (Actually withdrawing a proposed deletion really only makes sense when the proposal in retrospect turns out to have been really dumb and everyone participating is throwing popcorn at you. In those circumstances withdrawing would let an admin snowball-close the discussion. For anything else the community should get its say once it's been brought up here.)
On the issue itself I'm going to go slap a {{vk}} up below my original comment. I was already on the fence, and with TE(æ)A,ea.'s awesome job finding scans for these I land solidly on the keep side. We still need to upload the scans, migrate the text (matching it to the scan and modern standards), and retransclude in the context in which they were published; but that's just the general maintenance backlog and nothing that needs be discussed on WS:PD.
Regarding your AWB edits… The textinfo template on Talk: is the old way to indicate the source pre-Proofread Page. For situations like this please indicate it using {{scans available|1=[link]}} at the top of the page itself so the availability of scans is made visible and the relevant tracking category gets added. Xover (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll just add my  Keep (^as nominator) !vote then! -Pete (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

John McCain Concession Speech

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. These speeches are not the result of work in capacity of the US Gov't and are not hostable on Wikisource.

Also:

These are speeches given by a senator and a presidential nominee, but in his capacity as a candidate not as an agent of the U.S. government, in some cases as a guest of private organizations. So {{PD-USgov}} seems to clearly not apply, and copyright has not expired on these 2008 speeches, and there is no indication that a Wikisource-compatible license was granted. Delete as copyright violations. -Pete (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Note: see prior discussions at Wikisource:Copyright_discussions/Archives/2024#Content_related_to_2008_U.S._presidential_election and Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2024#John_McCain_Concession_Speech_and_works_of_president-elect_Obama
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

2008 U.S. Democratic party presidential debates

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. These debates are not the product of someone fulfilling their elected duties, and so are not placed in the public domain, and cannot be hosted on Wikisource.

Previously nominated at Copyright discussions by @Beardo, discussion expired with little engagement. Note that @Beleg Âlt, and @MarkLSteadman had ~voted and/or discussed this item and related ones. -Pete (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Reasoning: No reason these items would been exempt from copyright, and no indication that they were released under a free/Wikisource-compatible license. Delete as copyright violations.

 Delete and ditto the last discussion, this should be moved to WS:CV. SnowyCinema (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Extracts from an Opera

The following discussion is closed:

speedied, converted to redirect —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

List of links to poems in The complete poetical works and letters of John Keats —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Captain Sharkey

The following discussion is closed:

speedied, converted to Portal —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

List of works by Arthur Conan Doyle, not itself a work —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Moved (speedily) to Portal:Captain Sharkey. For one, I don't think this deletion will be controversial. Two, I have found it to be important to keep series of works in individual portals so that the data about them can be easier tracked. It's better than just a listing on the Author page, because then the Wikidata items can have proper connections, etc. and it aids in searchability. SnowyCinema (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Template:Spider Boy/TOC

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied; converted to more streamlined approach requiring only one template, rather than a new template for each work. SnowyCinema (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Only used on one page and one index. subst: and delete as a separate template. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@Koavf:  Keep, there's an entire category of these: Category:Auxiliary_table_of_contents_templates, please read the docs to read why it exists. SnowyCinema (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
It's used for the Index TOC, and the front matter page, so as to avoid code repetition. Yes, you can use Subst, but all this will do is just put a manual code entry there. The idea is that if the TOC needs to be changed, it can just be done in one place rather than having to be at risk of being wrong in one place, and right in the other. SnowyCinema (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
As it turns out, I have invented a better method in {{AuxTOC detect}}. This will make it so that making a separate template for each one of these isn't required for the same clean outcome. It's proven to work on Index:Keeping the Peace.pdf. I'll go through and change all the templates accordingly and delete them later today. SnowyCinema (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. SnowyCinema (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC) (UTC)

Sonnet 140

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Not redirected because there are other works known as "Sonnet 140".

I believe this is a translation performed either by an anonymous/IP Wikisource editor in 2009, or else a translation of unknown provenance with no reason to believe it complies with Wikisource's copyright policy. I believe this is a different translation of the Petrarch poem Wyatt translated, here: "The long love that in my thought doth harbor"

It should be deleted as being either out of scope or else a copyright violation; I don't think it's worth the effort to do further research to determine which is the case, if either would likely result in deletion. Please note, there are several such "prose translations" of Petrarch poems; while I have not found as much information about these others, I believe this logic would apply to all of them. See some prior discussion at Author talk:Thomas Wyatt. These full list of such sonnets:

(All are labeled "modern prose translation" on their respective pages.) -Pete (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Update: With the help of some fellow Wikisourcers (see Author talk:Thomas Wyatt), I have gathered some info about this poem (Petrarch's 140) and its various translations. See this versions page I created: Sonnet 109 (Petrarch) Along with the issues I mentioned above, I believe the title of Sonnet 140 is misleading; according to Petrarch's numbering scheme it is Poem 140, and it is also known as Sonnet 109. Further reason, in my view, to replace the translation of unknown origin with a redirect (to the versions page, which seems the best place to gather the info about the various titles the poem and its traslations have had). -Pete (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Good close, but three of the four sonnets included were missed. I believe all should be deleted under the same justification. (I'll note that Beardo had marked the first of them PD-old, but I believe that was a simple error.) -Pete (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

None of those other items were nominated for deletion: they were listed in the discussion, but they were not nominated, nor were they tagged with the template for the deletion discussion. Since they were neither nominated nor tagged, no action was taken. I am not going to presume nomination. Lots of things get mentioned in discussions, but a mention is not a nomination. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikisource:Welcome

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Redirected to Help:Introduction, but as this is a cross-namespace redirect, we may want to create a minimal page instead, which directs the reader to key locations.

In my reviewing of a completely different policy page, WS:What is Wikisource?, I came across this one, thinking it might redirect to it. Here we have a Project page with no header template, created in 2008 and not updated since 2013, and not at all connected to other main Project pages.

In fact, Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikisource:Welcome indicates almost no usage across the project, aside from linking on some newbie talk pages in lieu of Template:Welcome. This appears to have been the entire purpose of the page. It got 47 page views this month, but compare this to the just over 1,000 that WS:What is Wikisource? got during that same time.

This slipped under the radar for over a decade and is no longer useful for its intended purpose. I propose to redirect this to WS:What is Wikisource? or WS:About, or something similar. SnowyCinema (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Agreed, and it's what I'm proposing. All it comes down to is which page. SnowyCinema (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Help:Introduction, possibly? That seems most aligned with "welcome". Cremastra (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I have no objection in principle to redirecting somewhere, but I do think that a "welcome" redirect should redirect somewhere that actually welcomes the reader. I don't know if Help:Introduction is the place to add such a message. BD2412 T 04:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
I wasn't immediately aware of that page, so okay by me. SnowyCinema (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2024&oldid=14166899"