Open main menu
Proposed deletions
This page is for proposing deletion of specific articles on Wikisource in accordance with the deletion policy, and appealing previously-deleted works. Please add {{delete}} to pages you have nominated for deletion. What Wikisource includes is the policy used to determine whether or not particular works are acceptable on Wikisource. Articles remaining on this page should be deleted if there is no significant opposition after at least a week.

Possible copyright violations should be listed at Copyright discussions. Pages matching a criterion for speedy deletion should be tagged with {{sdelete}} and not reported here (see category).

Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days. For the archive overview, see /Archives.


Contents

NominationsEdit

Please place your request in a level 2 header at the bottom of this page.



File:HRPEvidenceBook.pdfEdit

File was moved from Commons, but basically issues from c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:HRPEvidenceBook.pdf need to be solved. Either the unfree images mentioned cut from the PDF and new version reuploaded while old revdeleted, or as per Wikisource:Copyright policy#Fair use it should go away. --Base (talk) 11:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The scan of the work is the scan as has been released and is the copy of the text. I would   Keep for the file, and the reproduced text. The issue of any claimed images is related to the discussion on WS:S about the proposed change on exemptions to copyright where they are part of a reproduced work, so images for me are undetermined. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:PD-AfghanistanEdit

This was once a valid template, but Afghanistan has adopted a life+50 copyright law[1], and has joined the WTO[2] as of July 29, 2016 and thus that is the URAA date for Afghanistan; all Afghani works published by authors alive in 1966 or later are now copyright in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Prior to that discussion, we should be relicensing existing works, and dealing with the template to find out whether we have suitable existing templates to cater for the works, or we need to update this template for specificity. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of author based categoriesEdit

I think that author-based categories should be deletable under the speedy deletion policy so that we don't have to raise a discussion every time one pops up. They probably fall under rationale G5 (beyond scope) so the policy itself wouldn't need to be modified. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed but perhaps a new G8 criterion? Green Giant (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
There was a general discussion here to which we can link. If we are going to add it to the criterion, then we need to have supportive documentation of why they are out of scope for what wikisource includes, and how we explain the few that escape the reasoning. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Offences Against The Person Act, 1861 (repealed)Edit

A collection of extracts from the (complete and scan-backed) Offences against the Person Act 1861. The extracts consist of those portions of the original Act that “have been repealed and no longer represent the current law.” Putting aside for the moment the difficulty of keeping such a listing current (have no other portions of the underlying statute been repealed since Offences Against The Person Act, 1861 (repealed) was posted here a decade ago?), I question whether our own original listing of repealed statutes satisfies WS:WWI. Of course, if the UK Parliament issued a publication enumerating which portions of its Offences against the Person Act 1861 were no longer in force, I would see no problem with reproducing that document here. But Offences Against The Person Act, 1861 (repealed) doesn’t seem to be anyone’s work but our own and there is no indication that it was previously published. Tarmstro99 18:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Could this be updated to be essentially an annotated version of Offences against the Person Act 1861? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Historic American Engineering Record - Boston Elevated Railway Company photographs and informationEdit

A decade-old cut-and-paste job with copious OCR errors; would require significant cleanup work to make presentable. The accompanying talk page appears to be a personal note from a reader expressing appreciation for the text. I think I have located a scan of the original document here, but the scan includes hundreds of pages of appendices (containing photos, drawings, tables, and other information) not provided in our version. There is also this page which appears to include not only the scanned original document, but also clearer versions of the embedded photographs. It would surely be possible for an editor interested in the subject to combine the scanned text with the linked photographs to produce a version of the document far superior to that presently posted here. In its existing state, however, Historic American Engineering Record - Boston Elevated Railway Company photographs and information adds little of value to our collection and should be deleted. Tarmstro99 00:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

If we're sure either of those is the same "edition" (even if the indices are additional material not previously included -- maybe the original cut-n-paster didn't want to deal with complex data grids?), then possibly we could go the match-and-split route? --Mukkakukaku (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I did match-and-split on a text like this recently, with zero proofreading and tons of OCR crap, and based on my experience I would far rather proofread from scratch than from this. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
don’t know if i want to delete a cut and paste, without a scanned-backed to replace it. there are photos mass uploaded here c:Category:Historic American Engineering Record,
i would support a demonstration of an example here, given the large amount of material in HAER, that would support historic structures. Slowking4SvG's revenge 22:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I am a near-total amateur and came across this page while searching for material about Boston's Highland Railroad -- which I have yet to find. Even though it is far from pretty and almost totally obsolete, I would recommend keeping this because it does contain important information that would be very challenging to find elsewhere -- if it even still exists elsewhere. (For information and bemusement, starting in the 1870s, the Highland Railroad ran plaid horsecars from Grove Hall in Boston's Roxbury neighborhood to downtown Boston and beyond with a frequency of at least 1 every 8 minutes, which is far more frequent than the current service in 2019 and did not also call for a transfer. 2601:182:CB00:300B:344A:8F35:472:DA3 20:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Ed Allan

Tale of Two BrothersEdit

No source, and I cannot find one (although I can find recent works that used our copy). Without a source, we cannot tell whether this violated copyright.

There is a different translation in (external scan) "Stories from the Early World", R. M. Fleming (1923), if someone would like to create a DjVu from the Google copy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

It appears to be a slightly modified version of this translation by William Matthew Flinders Petrie (1901). The earliest version like ours that I can find is this one. I think we should replace our version with a more failthful rendition of Petrie's. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:SfnRefEdit

Is there any need anywhere for this template on Wikisource? We already have Template:Harvnb; do we need another? On Wikipedia such templates are invaluable, but here, do we need two? --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment: No immediate opinion on keep/delete, but just to note: sfnref and harvnb do not perform the same function. Harvnb spits out an actual short citation ("Smith 2019, p. 42") while sfnref spits out the HTML fragment identifier (anchor) needed to link to a full citation ("CITEREFSmith2019"). Harvnb would typically be used in the main article body of a enwp article somewhere (inline or inside ref tags), while sfnref would be used as a parameter to a full citation template (cite book, cite journal, etc.) in order to generate the target that harvnb or sfn links to. In that sense it has some function anywhere that we place a full citation that would be linked to (on the same page or a different page). Whether that is really needed here is another matter. --Xover (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Index:United States v. $29,410.00.pdfEdit

Reason: WS:CSD#G7 Request. It's currently an unneeded redirect, and I want to undo my previous move. –MJLTalk 22:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: Normally you can place {{speedy}} on a page that can be speedied, and someone will generally take care of it for you. I'm a bit confused in this case though, since United States v. $29,410.00.pdf and File:US V. $29,410.00.pdf are two different scans; what is your end goal here? Do you want all the proofread pages of United States v. $29,410.00.pdf removed, or do you want to restore it as the scan behind the transcription project, or something else? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Ulysses (11th edition)Edit

According to User:Prosfilaes, this is the 1922 edition and not the 11th edition (which was published in 1930). We have a scan-backed copy of the 1922 edition at Ulysses (1922) so this copy from Gutenberg is inferior and redundant. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete, and amend Ulysses (Joyce). --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Rivers to the Sea (Poem)Edit

As far as I can tell, the only reason anyone treats this excerpt from The Mother of a Poet as if it were itself a poem per se, is because someone got confused about the page header on page 81 of the collection and thought it was title of a new poem. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

A History of the SikhsEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: speedied as author request —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
This page is made by me by mistake so I want it to be deleted.--Harkawal Benipal (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  DoneBeleg Tâl (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)