Wikisource

Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2006-11

< Wikisource:Proposed deletions‎ | Archives
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.

Kept

Bible/Job/33/3

I don't know if this was an aborted attempt to create a project of each verse of the Bible in this format, but...yeah, not really what I think we need here - especially not if it's one of the only few verses to have such a page. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 04:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Kept --Benn Newman (AMDG) 21:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Crist

Your guess is as good as mine, not English, no apparant translation. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 04:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted

Reference data

For details on the reference data phase-out plan, see "Plan on phasing out reference data" (Scriptorium, May 2006) and "Articles under Category:Deletion requests/Reference data" (Proposed deletions, June 2006).

This is the last batch of reference data pages. —[admin] Pathoschild 03:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

All deleted.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 23:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Moby-dick.jpg

A recent bookcover—not free, and not on commons (thus against WS:IUG). --Spangineerwp (háblame) 22:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio. Deleted. Yann 20:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Max crivello

I have no idea what this is.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 04:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete Based on the first external link, I think it is a vanity page. --Benn Newman 03:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Galton Report

The copyright notice at this page indicates that the contents can be redistributed across the internet. It makes no mention of derivative works/commercial use, however. I propose we delete this work as incompatible with our copyright policy.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 20:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete --Benn Newman 02:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Michael Laitman- RAMLAN

This is not a text but an article, apparently created here because the subject failed both an AfD and a deletion review on wikipedia proper. -- Avi 17:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

William Shakespeare

Appears to be mainly a bad machine translation from the french and likely incomplete. --BirgitteSB 04:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Terrible translation. Delete.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 04:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
This is hideous; delete --Spangineerwp (háblame) 05:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Du génie by the same author and contributor, exact same case. Sherurcij (talk) (CRIMINALS ARE MADE, NOT BORN) 07:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
This is probably copyvio somewhere, the last parts are simple nonsense, speedy for any reason you feel like. Physchim62 16:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. --Benn Newman 17:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Benn Newman 21:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Chinese Wikinews supporters

Dovi created the page Category:Chinese Wikinews supporters, but it is unused. Is there any reason to keep this? --Benn Newman 22:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem, delete. Dovi 04:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete while there is none now.--Jusjih 14:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted --Benn Newman 14:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Seventh-day Adventism - Ellen G. White Writings

First off, not a source text...secondly, not written by White...thirdly, most of Ellen White's writings are claimed to be held in copyright by her estate as per [1] (Though if anybody can find out whether that's legit, or bullshit - I'd be glad to add some White texts to WS if they are allowed). Anyways, this article should definitely go. Sherurcij (talk) (CRIMINALS ARE MADE, NOT BORN) 06:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This copyright notice is designed to scare people off: the writings of Ellen G. White are public domain, as she was a U.S. author who died in 1915. Derived material on the website (e.g.) is protected by U.S. copyright (and not really that interesting either, IMHO!). Physchim62 08:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Virginmary.jpg

No copyright license, is used as illustration, not source work. Sherurcij (talk) (CRIMINALS ARE MADE, NOT BORN) 06:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete, there are plenty of free use images available: see commons:Category:Virgin Mary or w:Mary (mother of Jesus) for examples. Physchim62 08:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per above. --Benn Newman 01:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted --Benn Newman 22:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Limburg mijn Vaderland

Not translated to English, simply copied over from the Dutch Wikisource where it already exists. Sherurcij (talk) (CRIMINALS ARE MADE, NOT BORN) 07:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Tricky one, but I air on the side of delete. Was apparently written in 1909, but we don't know the date of death pof the author. I would transwiki this back to Limburg mijn Vaderland (English Wikipedia grudgingly accepts the lyrics of national anthems). Physchim62 08:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:PD-US and {{PD-US}}

The template has been depreciated. I replaced all the works that used it with more specific templates. --Benn Newman 01:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps make the warning that it should not be used stronger. --Benn Newman 21:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons has a template by the same name that is not the equivalent; theirs is mostly a replacement for {{PD-1923}}. --Benn Newman 22:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Any more opinions on this? --Benn Newman (AMDG) 21:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. This is good for new contributors who don't know much about copyright/licensing, but know that a work is PD for some reason. I think the template should add a category like Category:Pages which need specific copyright tag to indicate that a more explicit reason should be given (after all, not all works PD in the US are PD elsewhere).—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirected to Template:PD-1923 with an extra note that it needs to be replaced, deleted the category. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Letter from Birmingham Jail

I know the I Have a Dream speech has been a matter of some 'concern' for us in the past, but I'm curious whether MLK's open letter from Birmingham Jail, fits the same criteria. I don't have an opinion either way, but would hate to think this had been deleted without being discussed. Sherurcij (talk) (CRIMINALS ARE MADE, NOT BORN) 11:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether MLK's family have treated this document similarly to his dream speech in their attempts to have their copyright recognised. I think we'd really need to know the legal situation & the text of the letter. In any event we don't have the actual text, just the "this is copyright - don't add it" notice. AllanHainey 20:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Aye, that's my 'quandry', why we have a "this is copyright - don't add it" notice on an open letter. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 01:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
It could, plausibly, be copyrighted, depending on how it was first published, although it doesn't appear on the Rutgers copyright records (unlike I have a Dream and several other speeches/addresses). When and where was this letter first published? Physchim62 09:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Maintained deletion, There is insufficient copyright information to undelete this text. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

List of non-texts

This will be deleted in four months, or so. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 19:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment we have some NYT articles which seem poorly indexed (see below): ideas? Physchim62 13:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I found reasons to speedy delete all of these. --Benn Newman 17:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Lake George (Anoka County)

Delete Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 04:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted --Benn Newman (AMDG) 21:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Guardian Angel prayer

Seems to be a general personal bastardization of "Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep", not a published recognised prayer, afaik. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 04:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted --Benn Newman (AMDG) 21:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

List of Jewish casualties from the Bucharest Pogrom

No wikimedia project is meant to be a memorial. Such pages should be deleted. Number of people died is fine in an encyclopedia but individual names is not. Use a memorial wiki or something for it. This is not in wikimedia project scope. --Cool Cat 23:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Except formerly, [2]. :) Delete, we do not include reference material like this. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 23:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deleted, outside of scope. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 23:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Pages from Category:Suicide notes

I have not included notes which are too old to be protected by copyright or which have obvious "releases" in the text as cited. Notes listed below should be deleted as copyvios (and in many cases as simply pointless to keep on WikiSource). See also the discussion at the Scriptorium.Physchim62 09:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless I left an opinion under a specific text I think these should in general be kept. This is not a final decision on my part and I would love to have more information on the issue.--BirgitteSB 19:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete all except the one I marked as keep. --Benn Newman 20:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
It's worth noting that those people for whom their spouse left them a private suicide note that they didn't want shared - haven't shared it and are not available on Wikisource or elsewhere. You'll hear it said that they left a suicide note, but will never find the text of it, muchless a photograph. In the cases we have here, the family or police have clearly released the note to the mass media at the time, for the purpose of it being printed in whole, which directly implies there is no "fair use" implied, it is being released to the public domain to try and explain why their husband shot those girls, or why they think that their husband was secretly murdered, or whatever - so even the heirs have shown zero interest in any copyright concerns in any of these cases. There are thousands of notable people who commit suicide, left notes, and the notes were never released to the public - we don't host their notes. But if their notes have been released by their heirs to the mass media, then they are beyond any real doubt, public domain. Sherurcij (talk) (CRIMINALS ARE MADE, NOT BORN) 19:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sure that many suicide notes are written for anyone to read. But does that mean that they are in the Public Domain? Public Domain does not just mean that anyone can read and redistribute the text. Public Domain means that anyone can do anything they like with the text. /81.229.40.212 10:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, a release by the police under fair use, or even by the family under a restricted license, does not mean public domain. Unless we have evidence to the contrary, free reuse is not possible. Physchim62 09:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the users who said that if the note is here, it is likely that it was released by the family/heirs, who wished the note to be made public. Hence, they would probably wish that it remain on this site. Unless we have a good reason to believe that the heirs want the note removed (eg. complaint from a family member), I feel strongly that we should not delete any of the notes. We should not preemptively self-censor, if it is reasonable to believe that these notes are either in the public domain, or that permission has been granted to reproduce it.--144.214.42.129 08:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: Eleven of the texts have been re-classified under {{PD-US-no-notice}}, as per legal definition of publication. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 05:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Which legal definition of publication are you talking about? Where is there evidence that copies of the notes were distributed to the public with the consent of the copyright holder' and without any copyright notice being attached: see old 17 U.S.C. 20. Physchim62 14:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Sherurcij was using the definition from [3] which does not specifically mention anything about the copyright holders permission. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 15:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I quote from that definition: "It is thus possible to display a work, or distribute it with restrictions on disclosure of its contents, without actually 'publishing' it." As such is does mention the copyright holder's permission, as it must be distributed "without restrictions" (strangely close to the Wikisource copyright policy!) Physchim62 16:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
On the Topic of suicide notes, I feel that these, since there is no copyright protect or claim to ownership on these texts, should remain public domain and accessible to the public for purposes relating to studies of such people. For example, Virginia Woolf's Letter can be assigned characteristics related to the state of mind she posesed, and is reflective of the world she lived in. This is extremely important to anybody wo would partake in a study of novels such as "Mrs. Dalloway". The The Public dominion is important to anybody who cannot afford licensing purchases to use these texts, especially students. —unsigned comment by 134.117.254.250 (talk) .
The problem I have with some of these comments is that they assume copyright is related to who the note is addressed to. It doesn't matter that George Sanders's suicide note is addressed Dear World or that J. Clifford Baxter's is addressed to his wife: the copyright exists on these documents no matter whom they were addressed to. The question is whether copies of these notes are fair use, and I believe that they all are. Although I think that the suicide note of someone who committed a horrible mass murder-suicide that will live in infamy for decades (Marc Lepine) is far, far, far more notable than that of one musician among thousands (Kurt Cobain), I believe that if any notable individual commits suicide their suicide note is a testimony to their psychological state.
I would even go so far as to suggest that an actual photocopy of the note (showing the handwriting) would be more likely to be fair use than simple copies of the texts. The handwriting in suicide notes shows a great deal about the state of mind of the person, which in turn is an important factor in both their suicides and in their lives before the suicide. --70.72.19.133 19:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I would like to suggest deleting them from here of no evidence being in the public domain and claiming fair use at proper English Wikipedia articles.--Jusjih 20:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. No user has provided sufficient argument placing these works into the public domain. 81.229.40.212 has put forth a strong argument in opposition to this assumption which has not been refuted— a work meant to be read by anyone is not necessarily in the public domain, which can be used for any purpose without any limitation whatsoever and without proprietary rights held by the copyright owner. There being no legal precedent, and the Wikisource community not having the legal right to set new precedents in the name of the Wikimedia Foundation, and fair use being prohibited, these works must be assumed to be copyrighted unless proven otherwise in conformance with the Copyright policy. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2006-11&oldid=12652972"