Wikisource

Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2007-04

< Wikisource:Proposed deletions‎ | Archives
(Redirected from Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2007/04)
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

Author pages for organizations

Although organizations often publish works, they don't usually write them as an organization. An author page should be created for the individual author who wrote it. Such pages were previously deleted in October 2006. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep all and make more. The U.S. Department of Labor can be accurately said to be the author of much of title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the Copyright Act of 1976 was 'written' by the 94th Congress, virtually none of the works at Author:Bill Clinton were written by him personally but were issued by him as 42nd President of the United States. Having pages such as these in the Author-space would go a long way to rationalising our cataloguing, by moving equivalent pages out of the Wikisource-space. Copyright law recognises collective authorship, why shouldn't Wikisource? Physchim62 03:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree with Psychim, take note of this historic incident, it likely won't be repeated in the future ;) Sherurcij (talk) (?eµa saßa??a?e?) 04:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, Agree with Physchim62 - United States Government agencies can be said to be the author of many works, and as such these works are then available as public domain. Smee 05:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC).
  • I really hate it when Physchim62 is right; KEEP Collective bodies can be authors. The lead sponsor of a bill is very unlikely to actually be the author of the text of it, and it would be more accurate to track it by which congress it was, or not track it at all. ++Lar: t/c 14:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Awww, be fair, please! ;) I know that I am going against current Wikisource policy, but I think that allowing collective authors in Author-space would be a benefit to to Wikisource cataloging. It is certainly a benefit, or at least it seems so to me, to discuss it again, whether people agree with me or not. The last time I brought it up at Scriptorium (about three months ago) there was no discussion, only a single statement of policy: at least this time I have managed to get people to state their views (I hope) :) Physchim62 18:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all Author namspace is for people not organizations. The fact that we limit this namespace to people does not mean we must list a person as the author on the work. The US Department of Labor and others are not a cohesive author. Works by thah organization in 1880 has little relation to works written by that organization in 1980. They may be categorized together but they are not authored together. I do not want to maintain author pages for every single adminstration of every goverment the world over which is tne only logical end to going down this path. Catalogues of these sorts of things do not belong in the Author space.--BirgitteSB 14:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    Comment What does belong in Author-space, if not catalogs of works? Articles about authors are surely the ressort of Wikipedia (although some of the short summaries which are found on Wikisource are certainly helpful, e.g. for copyright info) I cannot see how value is added by seperating corporate-authored works from individually-authored works, nor how value is added by holding the catalogs of the two types of works in different namespaces. Physchim62 16:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    I don't consider the works to be corporate-authored. Please see Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2006/07#UK Acts of Parliament for how the format at Wikisource:Legislative documents/England was arrived at. This format should be modifed for other situations within the Wikisource: or else a newly devised namespace.--BirgitteSB 18:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    The author namespace is not simply for catalogs of work, or it would overlap with the project and category namespaces. It is for indexes of works by author, to facilitate lookup as you might find in a library. Paying an author to write something does not make you an author, and that author remains the author. —{admin} Pathoschild 19:02:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Author pages should be to list works which a particular individual wrote, not works which were published by a corporate entity (categories can do that).—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    Comment Categories could do all the work which is currenly done in authorspace, if that is the criterion people wish to use. However, we already categorize textes by date, genre, source country and copyright status: that's four categories, even for the simple cases. I still plead for my solution, on the added ground that it helps prevent category-creep. Physchim62 16:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    You must consider author page creep as well. Author pages are for authors, which does not include organizations that hire authors, organizations that distribute or redistribute authors' works, and organizations that publish or republish authors' works. The United States department of labor does not write anything; it is an organization which might hire an author to write something, and that person is the author. —{admin} Pathoschild 19:02:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    The "category-creep" I was referring to was a large number of categories linked from a single article, not having a large number of categories accross the whole of Wikisource: there are arguments for and against either, but they are distinct discussions. As a text is usually only ever linked to a single author, the only author page "creep" which can occur is to have lots more pages in author-space, linked from articles which at the moment do not link anywhere in the "author" field. I am still at a loss to see (i) what is "lost" by having more unique pages in author-space, nor (ii) what is gained by cataloging individual and collective works seperately. The 'purity' of the Author-space has a cost in terms of cataloging which is more complex than would otherwise be the case, what is the corresponding benefit? Physchim62 12:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
    Comment, the same reason why "Author:Disputed" and "Author:Anonymous" should be deleted, is the same reason *these* should be kept. It comes down to the fact all documents produced by the Senate SubComittee on UnAmerican Activities, whether their investigation of Lucille Ball or their investigation into Monty Hall, are related and written by the same body of people, even if it consisted of different people each year. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 15:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
    If the work was authored by the organization itself itself (such as a committee report), an argument could be made that they are the author and deserve an author page. This is not what is at issue, though; here we have several organizations that do not author works, but hire outside authors to write for them. There is only one author in those cases, and it is the author they hired; were we to index by sponsor, we'd have many works that listed two authors, the author and the organization that sponsored them (or misleadingly indexed the sponsor but not the author). —{admin} Pathoschild 18:07:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
    Regarding "commitee authorship" . Although I can agree that a commitee could funtion as author. I do firmly believe that it not acceptable to use the author namespace to index works with merely a related authorship but rather to works with the same authors. The 911 committe could be an author. They authored the the 911 report; it is a distinct gruop of people who wrote something. The House of Representatives Ways and Means Comittee could not be author. That commitee is not a distinct group of people but rather an office with changing membership. The reports that have come from that commitee over the years do not have the authors but merely have authors who are related by the office they held. This is not enough correlation to present them on Wiksource as sharing authorship. It is misleading. And to treat them properly (making a single author for each different membership) would destroy the very reason there is support for using them as authors; as a way to navigate related works.--BirgitteSB 19:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
    On the other hand, there is a strong link between different texts produced by the same Committee, even if the mebership of that committee has changed... how are these not "related works"? Physchim62 16:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    Please re-read my remarks. I never said works by comittees with changing membership are not related. I said they do not share the same authors, and that it is misleading to use authorship to collect works which are merely related and are not actually authored by the same people. --BirgitteSB 19:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    Works are best related with a Wikisource index or categories. —{admin} Pathoschild 20:52:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all. These are all large organizations, filled with unnamed people doing work behind the scenes. As such, they operate more as publishers than authors—except here, the real authors often give up the right to have their name attached to the work. Granted, organizing pages by publisher could be valuable, but it is an entirely different proposition, and one of questionable value. I agree with creating Author pages for committees where all potential contributors are identified and can be easily determined (for example, finding out who was on the US Supreme Court in 1943 is a trivial task). I see no problem with our current system of organization—by categories, and on separate index pages when necessary. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 22:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    A potential problem with this opinion is that of ghostwriters—if works by a ghostwriter would be categorized under the "author's" name, then that would seem to parallel this situation. I'll stand by my delete for now, but this is something to think about. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 22:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    This is the problem I raised above in relation to works by Bill Clinton: should we really be pretending that they were written by him simply because they were released above his signature? I think that listing them as works of Author:42nd President of the United States would be more accurate.... Physchim62 14:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    That would not make a difference, unless his writers were also the 42nd President of the United States. This problem is largely a technicality; the author namespace exists to look up by author, but very few people will look up Bill Clinton's speeches by ghostwriter. If we know a work was ghostwritten, we can list them under his name as 'foo (1994, ghostwritten by John Doe)'. If the ghostwriter has enough works for his author pages, we can link to that. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:31:09, 02 March 2007 (UTC)
    Of course we could do that, but we don't. This is still not an argument as to why the "Author" space should be reserved for identifiable physical people, to the detriment of other questions of cataloguing. Physchim62 14:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    Because it's an Author namespace. If we want a general-purpose namespace to index by anything, we should create an 'index' namespace instead (or use the Wikisource namespace, as is already done). Using the author namespace for this is equivalent to writing "Author: Canada, some people in" on a library lookup card. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:27:14, 05 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep this and make more when appropriate. For instance Author:United Nations Security Council would be fine for United Nations Security Council Resolutions. Currently they are authorless. — MrDolomite | Talk 18:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and make more for the reasons stated previously. Both copyright law (at least in the U.S.) and library card catalogs recognize both institutional authorship and individual authorship; no clear reason why it should be different here. Tarmstro99 14:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment To the people who wish to keep and make more. Can you explain a how you would arrange an author page for the documents which will be indexed at Wikisource:Legislative documents/England? I just can't see how this information belongs on a author page. I cannot see what the problem is with index pages at all, much less why author pages are to be prefered.--BirgitteSB 19:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No consensus. I normally refrain from closing contested discussions I participate in, but I do not think there is anyone who is likely to close this that did not participate, and a "no consenusus" close doesn't really count as a decision anyways. If anyone wishes to see this discussion continue you have my permission to strike my closing and unarchive (if necessary). It is obviously going to come up again, and I hope when it does we can have some solid examples of what people want to see come out of this. The theorectical concept alone is clearly not very convincing for either side.--BirgitteSB 16:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Works by Bill Clinton

political works which are not U.S. Govt. works

Physchim62 03:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted

A mistake I made

I'm new to Wiki editing. I was creating a structure into which standards and related documents can be placed.

See http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Category:Standards_%28and_related_documents%29

I would like to delete the page http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Defence/Defense_Standards but I don't know how to do so (or whether I have the power to do so).

(There is a Category page of the same name.)

Andrew

Deleted. You can add {{sdelete|reason why it should be deleted}} to pages like this in the future. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 21:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


Du génie

This appears to be a low quality machine translation.--BirgitteSB 18:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Its actually not too bad for a machine translation... but the English text has seen much of a human hand, and is useless as a text for an English speaker. Delete as stands. Physchim62 16:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sahih Muslim

Edited and blanked by the same IP. Unsure if this is really source text.--Jusjih 18:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sahih Muslim/Introduction to Sahih Muslim

I wonder if this is really source text.--Jusjih 18:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Architecture

This is a misplaced index page, and subject indexing is best accomplished by categories. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:01:17, 03 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:PortalTemp

This template is unused, unneeded, and redundant with the Community Portal. There might be some use in templating individual sections, as is done on the Main Page, but there's no point making the whole table a template. —{admin} Pathoschild 19:35:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted--BirgitteSB 16:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Appeal Bible, English, King James, According to the documentary hypothesis

The eradication of this group of useful source texts is profoundly irritating. If wikisource finds it impossible to reinstate these, I would ask an admin to kindly e-mail the last versions of these texts to me at (let's not encourage spam), so I can at least have a copy for personal use. 82.36.26.229 18:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

For the non admins here, can you describe the material and its provenance? --Doc glasgow 19:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I've temporarily restored the pages to allow discussion and content retrieval. It was originally deleted following a proposed deletion in September 2006. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:43:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion Yes, this is interesting, but it is also original research. The documentary hypothesis, a theory that attributes different portions of the Old Testament to various sources, is certainly notable - but different scholars reconstruct the sources differently , whilst some deny it altogether. If some scholar has created an text of the KJV Bible marked by which source he attributes which bit to, and if that scholar's work is pd, then we could include it - but in the absence of such a pd work we cannot create our own.--Doc glasgow 00:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks - I've now downloaded the lot onto my hard drive. I'm aware of the difficulties, particularly with regard to separating out "E". The entire thing looks like a substantial and rather worthwhile piece of original research by user:FDuffy in late 2005, and although one may suspect Roman Catholic agenda from a name like that, the layout and presentation is the clearest I've seen of the problem. This clearly should be online somewhere, and user:FDuffy should probably be encouraged to do so (if he's contactable) if it is deemed unsuitable for Wikisource. Although I suspect his intent was to put this into the public domain by uploading it to Wikisource, IANAL, so I would be hesitant to republish without his consent. 82.36.26.229 17:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If it is uploaded here, it is released under the GFDL, so providing any re-use complies with that, then it is fine. Would wikibooks take it? We could have it transwikied there - it is certainly a potentially useful piece of work. --Doc glasgow 01:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    • We approached Wikiversity about transwiki but we did not really understand enough about the goals of the research to give it a good presentation. There have been alot of copyright violations of derivatives uploaded here, so I would hate to say it is definately GFDL. Especially with the Bible, people just think that sort of thing can't be copyrighted. Do we really know it was work original to being uploaded to Wikisource? Wikibooks would not want it as text dump. If it were active project with people willing to work into Wikibooks parameters, maybe. But that was not the case, we were only certain that it didn't meet WS:WWI--BirgitteSB 15:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:48:58, 07 April 2007 (UTC)

Universal religion book

Appears to be an unpublished work in progress. Doesn't meet WS:WWI.--BirgitteSB 15:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:10:51, 07 April 2007 (UTC)

Unused images

These images haven't been used for ages and are just cluttering up WS:

  1. Image:Porgelogo.png - part of a failed logo vote
    Speedily deleted as it violates the Copyright policy (all rights reserved). —{admin} Pathoschild 20:48:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Image:01-002.jpg - plate of the first two lines of the beginning of The Divine Comedy.
  3. Image:Fractaluniverse.jpg - has absolutely nothing to do with WS
  4. Image:Blackholetheoryofuniverseredshift.gif - nothing to do with WS
  5. Image:Fourforcesofafractaluniverse.jpg - nothing to do with WS
  6. Image:Padsynth steps.png
  7. Image:Padsynth bw1.png
  8. Image:Padsynth bw2.png
  9. Image:Padsynth profile1.png
  10. Image:Padsynth profile1s.ogg

—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, along with the following related unused images:
—{admin} Pathoschild 02:21:30, 07 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Imageneeded

This orphaned, uncategorized, and unused template is intended to track author pages with no images. If this is desirable, it can be done automatically by the author template. —{admin} Pathoschild 23:35:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:11:53, 07 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikisource:Transcription Projects

This orphaned, uncategorized, and incomplete list would be more efficiently performed with Category:Proofreading pages. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:31:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:16:31, 07 April 2007 (UTC)

Works by date template system

This system, copied from Wikipedia, should be replaced with a new system I coded for date categories. The new system is customizable, simple to use, automatically corrects 1st century glitches, correctly sorts categories, and supports the Common Era system (dates before and after year zero). More specifically:

  • Customizable: any dated categorization can be created using the same template system (for example, authors by dates of birth and death categories).
  • Simple to use: a single template is created as a shortcut for the information passed to the main template, and this template automatically adjusts the output based on the information provided. A bot can easily implement the system, but easy-to-read code is always good (see example).
  • Automatically corrects glitches that occur in the 1st century (compare: old system with manual fix, new system without).
  • Improved category sorting: compare old system (10–21, 2–9) with the new system (1–21).

The new system makes use of {{categories by date}} and {{categories by date/list}}, with a simplified shortcut template such at {{deaths by year}} for individual category branches. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:17:19, 05 March 2007 (UTC)


Replacing; 344 pages will be converted and another 4116 pages created by Pathosbot. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:00:00, 07 April 2007 (UTC)

Replaced and deleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 07:46:32, 07 April 2007 (UTC)

Mu Alpha Theta Student Delegate Bylaws

Long-unlinked page, appears to be drawn from this document dated 2006 (although I have not flagged as a {{copyvio}} due to the lack of identified author or copyright notice). No information about license status, and no indication that the text was ever previously published in any peer-reviewed source. —Tarmstro99 01:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete unless an author and a proof that this is not a copyright violation are provided. Yann 15:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. ++Lar: t/c 11:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted --Spangineerwp (háblame) 05:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Philip Orin Parmelee

This page has actually been tagged {{delete}} since August 2006, but so far as I can tell, the nominator never gave any reasons for the proposed deletion and the work hasn’t been discussed on this page. I agree that the work should probably be deleted. It is copied from this web site and appears to consist of a compilation of old newspaper clippings selected by a relative of the page subject. Suggest deletion because (1) neither the source web site nor the Wikisource page give any information about the origin of the newspaper clippings they are reproducing (nothing to indicate where they were published, etc.) so it’s not particularly useful; and (2) it’s a possible copyvio. Somebody went to the trouble of selecting and arranging old newspaper clippings about this subject; in doing so, they probably acquired a copyright in their compilation under U.S. law even though the underlying clippings themselves are in the public domain. The Wikisource page reproduces the same exact clipping excerpts in the same sequence as the original compiler selected. Since there’s no information on the page about who did the compiling of these excerpts or whether they have authorized their compilation to be issued under a GFDL-compatible license, there’s no way to tell whether this page is a copyvio or not. The only indication one way or the other seems to be from the home page of the originating site, which includes the notice “Copyright © January 14, 2000, Ralph Cooper.” —Tarmstro99 16:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 07:17:53, 06 May 2007 (UTC)

Seraphina 3

Hello,

This looks like a personal remake of Tolkien. No source, and no author mentioned. Yann 22:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, deleted by Yann. —{admin} Pathoschild 19:12:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Reqmidi

This template requests that a midi file be created for a particular work. However, this is redundant on Wikisource; virtually every song on Wikisource would benefit from a midi if no better audio version is available. A relatively comprehensive list of such pages can be created using the CatScan tool. —{admin} Pathoschild 19:12:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 07:21:24, 06 May 2007 (UTC)

Unused images

PDFs

Images

Misc

All of these images are unused and just cluttering up Wikisource. I also don't think there would be any benefit by transfering them over to Commons.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 07:39:40, 06 May 2007 (UTC)

US Honorable Service/Discharge insignia

Nothing on this page seems to suggest that it is a source text previously published elsewhere, and a web search has turned up few references to these insignia other than this article itself. —Tarmstro99 17:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, no response from CORNELIUSSEON. —{admin} Pathoschild 17:37:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Classic short stories

This category seems to be fairly subjective; what makes a short story classic? Due to the subjective nature, it would seem to be introducing a bias for the included works and against the excluded ones.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Author:Roger Pedersen] & The City Jungle

Norwegian amateur poet born 1972. Fails WS:WWI and possible copyvio.--BirgitteSB 17:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Tripartite Pact

No evidence of PD, even if the original is PD, the translation probably isn't. Yonatan 15:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Technically, there's a very good chance it was produced by a US Fed'l agency and distributed to media sources at the time...I'm not sure anybody would even bother translating this for profit...I'd say chances are 90% that it's a government translation, 10% that it's a media translation. If it's a government translation, there's a good chance it's US. So I err on the side of Keep, unless there's some serious reason we shouldn't be hosting it. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 03:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
It may be the case, but just assuming that it is, is not enough. If it is a US government translation, it should be fairly easy to find the proof and the source. Yann 08:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

pdfs related to a case

These are a bunch of PDF images uploaded by the same user. They are not linked to anything and though the user claims they are Public Domain, I don't see any reason to think they are. They are not linked to anything and do not relate to anything on Wikisource. --Metal.lunchbox 07:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I saw something similar the other day, and had the same moral struggle of whether to nominate them for deletion or not, documents related to what appeared to be a personal feud brought before the courts. There is no notability to the cases, but should that be an absolute requirement? A lot of books we host aren't notable either...should that be grounds for deletion? Personally, I vote we simply 'misuse' (in a way I hate to see done) the copyvio template, mark the first eight documents as copyvios, and well...not sure about the last two. Traditionally we do host trial transcripts, so maybe keep those two? Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 07:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    Sherurcij : I would never suggest that "notability" be used as criterion for deleting a document. To subjective and potentially exclusive. Users should consider notability in deciding what to post, each posting whatever Wikisource ought to have in their opinion, but it should never become a proscriptive criterion. --Metal.lunchbox 22:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think Wikisource should host PDF anyway, except temporarly to publish some documents the normal way. Yann 08:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • If these are US court decisions, the court opinions are valid under {{PD-USGov}}, but the redistribution of supporting material is less clear (see w:Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#copyright status of US Court filing). It appears to be related to w:Community Chapel and Bible Training Center. Perhaps we can suggest that Natedawg1604 (talk • contribs) coverts them to wiki syntax? John Vandenberg 12:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    I think I understand your point, but King County Superior Court is not the United States Government. That is actually an easy enough mistake to make A work of the United States Government, as defined by United States copyright law, is "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties." The term only applies to the work of the federal government, not state or local governments. . I'm no expert on Copyright law so I do not know the copyright status of a county court publication in Washington but barring any evidence that they are indeed Public Domain, we cannot in good faith host them. In either case, I would suggest that the hosting of unlinked PDF images is not what Wikisource is for. They'd have to have a clear copyright status and be used as supporting documents to some text document on Wikisource.--Metal.lunchbox 22:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    My apologies ... the discussion I had recently on this issue has been archived to "w:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 May 4#copyright status of US Court filing", and the copyright template I meant to refer to is {{PD-EdictGov}}. John Vandenberg 05:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone is willing to transcribe them. Regardless of the content, they are orphaned PDFs.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:14:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

ABC News Defrauding: Inside The ABC News Ufo Documentary Hoax

The terms of use, being a copyrighted document, allow us to reproduce only if the document is intact and unaltered.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:26:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Exopolitics or Xenopolitics?

Again, ToS only allow us to present this if it is unaltered.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:29:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Miscellaneous results

Works without translator information

The following pages have been marked for deletion as lacking translator information for at least a month. These works are potential copyright violations because they do not provide enough information to confirm their conformity to the Copyright policy. (Translations confer new copyright, even if the original work is in the public domain.)

For more information on the {{translator?}} template, see "{{translator?}}" (Scriptorium, November 2006). —{admin} Pathoschild 22:05:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

General discussion

  • Some of these can be deleted for other reasons - but for works where the only reason is an translator that has proven impossible to find, I think we would be wrong to simply delete such articles. Take Sermon to the Birds, its original translator will likely never be known...and if you can find me evidence it is a copyVio, by all means delete it. But if the translator is simply lost to the mists of time, then I think we shouldn't give way to paranoia and goosestepping, and instead just relax and help improve the project, rather than pushing our personal campaigns.Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 23:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

    If the translators have been lost in the mists of time, they're in the public domain— assuming the 'mists of time' start 120 years ago. Otherwise, they are potential copyright violations and definite violations of our licensing terms under the GNU Free Documentation License.

    Deleting such works are, in my opinion, an improvement. There is no 'personal campaign' involved, any more (I assume) than there is a conspiracy to add interesting works. I did not propose the system, nor did I create the template, nor did I tag most of the pages. These pages have been marked with giant red "Works without identified translators will likely be deleted" banners for months; all I did was list them here and determine when they were tagged. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:28:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

    The point remains that it is irresonsible to list them for deletion, as is being proven, translators can be found for a number of the works with a cursory glance (I just pointed out eleven that are definitely public domain) - it would have been better to propose a "project" to sort these out on the Scriptorium, or otherwise - than to decide we're going to delete works that are likely public domain by virtue of age (Prayer of St Francis). For works obviously written in the past thirty (or 70) years, sure - but otherwise, why waste this effort? Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 07:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    This is a deletion backlog, not a cleanup backlog; and the template is added in the hopes that the contributor or a reader will notice and add the information, not as a long-term cleanup task. If you'd like to add translator information, you can browse Category:Deletion requests/Unknown translators at any time. Such works are typically blanked and listed at Wikisource:Possible copyright violations for deletion in two weeks, yet some of these works have been left as-is for over seven months, potentially violating copyright and definitely eliminating our usefulness as a free content repository. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:05:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • If anyone else is researching these please list unsuccessful attempts (i.e. "Googled third line; no hits" or "Gutenburg version is a different translation" etc.). So that we do not repeat each others work.--BirgitteSB 12:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Individual works

  1. 1977 Constitution of the USSR (since 03 Dec 2006)
  2. About Love (since 07 Oct 2006)
  3. After the Theatre (since 07 Oct 2006)
  4. Citizenship in a Republic (since 09 Oct 2006)
    • Comment: I can find no indication that this speech was given in French. Are we sure this isn't an English speech that was given in France? After all, Roosevelt was American and spoke English.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
      He spoke French well and the speech was delivered in France, so it's quite possible it was delivered in French. I can't find any mention of this one being French, though. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:51:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
      Kept; a LeadershipNow citation (see bottom of the page) suggests that the original was English. —{admin} Pathoschild 23:16:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. God and the State (since 07 Oct 2006)
    • Keep. I can't find translator information, but I did find the edition it was printed in. This version is identical to the one here, which says it was printed in God and the State, 1916, New York: Mother Earth Publishing Association.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
      Kept. That edition was translated by Benjamin R. Tucker, according to marxists.org. That site gives a slightly different version (which is more grammatically correct), but printed editions seem to confirm the version we have. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:15:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. I am an African (since 06 Oct 2006)
  7. Jhalakati Speech (since 07 Oct 2006)
  8. Kumartuli Speech (since 07 Oct 2006)
  9. Madame Bovary (since 25 Jan 2007)
    Translator noted by Zhaladshar. Thanks. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 02:54:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  10. Misfortune (since 07 Oct 2006)
  11. Nelson Mandela's statement from the dock at the Rivonia Trial (since 05 Jan 2007)
  12. Novum Organum (since 07 Oct 2006)
  13. Rules for the Direction of the Mind (since 07 Oct 2006)
  14. Satyanusaran (since 07 Oct 2006)
  15. Speech at the Hughly Conference (since 07 Oct 2006)
  16. The Doctrine of the Mean (since 07 Oct 2006)
  17. The Great Learning (since 07 Oct 2006)
  18. Trial Speech of Ken Saro-Wiwa (since 06 Oct 2006)
  19. Uttarpara Speech (since 07 Oct 2006)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2007-04&oldid=3575017"