Jump to content

Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archive 2010

Add links
From Wikisource

This page collects done requests for deleting specific articles from Wikisource, 2010.

Other archives see here.

December 2009 / January 2010

[edit]

Galaktion Tabidze

[edit]

I am afraid that all texts from this author here - see Galaktion Tabidze - are copyvios as the author died 1959 (see e.g. w:en:Galaktion Tabidze). I contacted the users User talk:Antonio and User talk:Tokoko. If there will be no answer we have to delete them all (but possibly in some 3 weeks they could be published on Wikilivres anyway). -jkb- 14:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but I as a citizen of Georgia can confirm that the Government, the Council of writers and poets, the Patriarchate, and many other institutions have opened creativity Tabidze in the public domain, because Taidze very famous and beloved poet of all Georgians.--თეკა 14:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult to understand what you mean. What some councils, Patriarchate or some institutions do is one point. The other one is the fact that (as far as I know) the Georgian copyright law protect work 70 years after the death of the author. Some institution, a Patriarch, council or even the government cannot open a protected work into the public domain (the legislative can do it). The holder of the copyright title can do it, and this is the author itself or the testamentary heir. If you have some links that provide the text PD so please let us know. Regards, -jkb- 17:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be saying that the tests are in PD. Unfortunately, I have to agree that 70 years haven't paseed. But this human is a classic of Georgian literature, who had greatly influenced Georgian Culture , and who is considered to be the King of Georgian Poets. Also, I can assure you that there won't be problems with relatives of Galaktion. Please remember, that the main purpose of policies of Wikimedia Foundation is protecting it's projects. In this case bureaucracy is not clever, as we will lose a lot, and won't get anything back. --Gaeser 18:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well. The point is not that the author is considered to be a very important poet, and not that probably nobody would make troubles here. The point is (and it is not bureaucracy but the very copyright policy of the WM Foundation) that the texts are not legally PD but protected and copyrighted. They will be deleted on this domain. As I mentioned above, the texts could be presented after January 1st 2010 on the project Wikilivres as we have the protection of 50 years after the death there. You should let me know. Regards, -jkb- 18:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This case is not as easy as it would first seem. Some of the poems were first published before 1923, and to that extent there should be no problem with these under US law. These should be identified. Beyond that it would certainly be the easiest course to transfer the rest to Wikilivres at the end of the month when these works become PD in Canada. That Tabidze's poems would be a welcome cultural addition to Wikisource is not to be doubted; unfortunately, that is not a point that has much weight in copyright discussions. In Soviet times many of these works might not have retained their copyright protection, and this has been a source of much debate with regard to works of Russian authors. These would have received the most attention because Russia was clearly the most populous of the Soviet republics. The question here becomes whether post-Soviet Georgian law would have restored copyrights to authors whose works had gone into the public domain during Soviet times. Who were Tabidze's heirs? If there are none in accordance with Georgian inheritance law, does the copyright default to the state? If that is the case the Georgian government, and others noted above, may very well have the right to put the material in the public domain or provide some other kind of licensing. Eclecticology 19:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to investigate a bit and then I asked on Commons on Commons:Commons talk:Licensing#Georgian copyright law, the answer came from Lupo here. The Georgian Copyright law 1999 says 70 years post mortem, and short terms copyright of the SU has been restored to 70 years as well, i.e. generally 70 years p.m. That means: all texts shall be moved to WL and deleted here after January 1st (I will do it). If there are some texts published prior to 1923 so somebody who knows the language and the sources (that should be given) can let me know and such texts will stay here, naturally. For details see article 67(2, 3, 4, 5) of the Georgian Copyright Law 1999. -jkb- 18:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right - let it be so, but I hope that they'll be moved to WL.--Gaeser 19:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, really sorry, but the most texts from him here are copyvios. Anyway: the texts can be imported to Wikilivres and you can link to it from here and from your Wikipedia project as well. I will start to move the texts by import after January 1st 2010. But however, I will need some help. Firstly, the texts that have been published outside the territory of the USA prior to 1923 can stay here, but we need all details about it (year of publishing, place, title of the book). Secondly, the titles of some more texts are with brackets like (): what does it mean? I think I will move them without the bracktes. Thirdly, on Wikilivres we use internationalized templates so that the most of them will have to be changed. For the first, you can have a look at User:-jkb-/Moving Tabidze - make there notice for all works published before 1923, please. Regards and nice post-X-mas days and a happy New Year - wished by -jkb- 17:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brackets mean that poetry hasn't any title. There is first sentence of poetry in the brackets.--Antonio 10:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. So the brackets will stay, I guess. Thanks. -jkb- 00:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Ant wrote all already. Also, jkb, merry Christmas, as Georgians celebrate on the 7-th if January. :)--Gaeser 19:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. Well, in this case once more: Merry X-mas in some more days. I am sure I will not forget the date as my wife is born on January 7th :-)... Keep well, -jkb- 00:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Template:PD-US-1923-abroad/KA, -jkb- 17:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that the way this is handled is a matter of convention. In some books of poetry first lines are the titles. A generic title like "A Sonnet" is seldom useful, even if provided by the poet himself. The person browsing through a list of poems for something familiar is not likely to know whether these words are first lines or titles. An opening bracket would force sorting these into separate lists. This I would suppress the bracket, but retain the ellipsis at the end of the "title". Eclecticology 19:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brackets or something else - however it should be used the same system here and on Wikilivres. The Georgian editors should decide it. The most important point is the question of the unicode sorting, indeed, especially in a multilanguage domain like here (or Wikilivres). Brackets would be sorted even prior to the Latin characters and even prior to numbers, not together wit the Georgian ones. Are there any special characters in Georgian used in this language only? -jkb- 23:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at my Unicode book: Georgian does not appear to have many special punctuation symbols. It has a special paragraph separator symbol, U+10FB, which must be followed by by the U+2029 paragraph separator code. It also borrows its full stop, U+0589, from Armenian. Neither of these situations can be expected to occur at the beginning of a line. I'm assuming that Georgian speakers have figured out what to do with old texts that use the now-obsolete capital letters. Besides this, Georgian borrows ASCII punctuation. It seems to be a well-behaved language. I have consistently believed that the use of punctuation marks in linkable titles should be limited, and even avoided altogether in the opening position. While textual accuracy would appear to demand using brackets, quotation marks and inverted Spanish question marks at the beginning, these can always be restored in the article header without compromising the sorting process. Eclecticology 08:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well after all the following sollution would seem to me as acceptable: we do not use any brackets or other characters on the beginning (the unicode sorting will be fine), we use only something like bracket ) or better an asterix * on the end and in the note there will be a notice about the lack of title (both templates here and on WL use the parametre notes so that it should be OK). -jkb- 09:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still tend to prefer an ellipsis (...) at the end, as this mark tends to indicate that there is more to follow, but that's not a big deal. Eclecticology 01:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, ellipsis is fine, I start this afternoon. Regards, -jkb- 10:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I started the imports, a "to do list" etc. see wikilivres:User:-jkb-/Import Tabidze. -jkb- 18:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Georgian Wikisource does not exist yet. Before moving Georgian works to Canadian Wikilivres, please ensure that the works are in the Canadian public domain or with any copyright holders' permission to post. Pre-1923 public domain applies in the USA but not normally in Canada.--Jusjih 01:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The poet in question died in 1959. His works went into the Canadian public domain while this discussion was happening. Eclecticology 07:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Tabidze's works published prior to 1923 will stay here. The other works are PD Canada since January 1st 2010. -jkb- 15:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


January 2010

[edit]

Þæt Wōplēoþ MacBeðes

[edit]

I really don't think we need this abortive attempt to translate Macbeth into Old English. It's been sitting around for over four years, and its creator hasn't returned since starting it. —Angr 01:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

requested by creator, no useful content -- Prince Kassad 17:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK -jkb- 17:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aeres language

[edit]

And the four pages in the category. There is no such language as "Aeres". —Angr 12:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why discuss this again and again? We just need an admin who deletes this stuff. It's a fact that this "language" is a fake. We are speaking about a language allegedly spoken in the centre of Europe. If that was true there would be hundreds of books discussing the language. But the supporters of "Aeres" have consistently failed to produce any evidence of the language's existence since three years. Even if we consider it a constructed language there still is no evidence that this language is more than a made-up role-playing fun thing pushed to the real world by a handful guys. Give me three days time and I'll construct you Beres, Ceres and Deres languages.
Just delete it. --::Slomox:: >< 12:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please curb your impatience. The discussion has only been active for one week. If previous discussions were archived without action that suggests that those discussions were inconclusive. A published sources criterion has already been raised, and I find that more influential and objective than your allegations. Eclecticology 18:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it is impatient to say "just delete it" after this has been around for three years without any evidence for the language's existence and recurrent discussions without result, yes, then I am impatient.
If previous discussions were archived without action that suggests that those discussions were inconclusive. Could you summarize the points raised in the previous discussions that remain inconclusive? Cause to me it seems as if everybody agreed that there are no sources or evidence and opted for "delete" except for Ooswesthoesbes.
2007 Ooswesthoesbes said: Please note we are making a request for an ISO 639 code. According to the ISO 639-3 Change Requests documents no code was ever requested.
Ooswesthoesbes claimed to possess a Aeres dictionary. If that was true it should have been easy for him to provide the title and author of this dictionary to proof that the language exists.
In the 2009 discussion Ooswesthoesbes didn't back up his "Keep" with arguments, but instead he declared that Aeres could be considered Limburgish.
Ooswesthoesbes claims that he has no detail knowledge about the language at all and is just a ideational supporter. Still he is one of the main contributors to the Aeres Wikia.
But the weirdest thing is the language itself. According to the project proposal the language at some point in time became "reclassified as Low Saxon". And "this language is the same as West-Frisian", and "You can compare this language to Limburgish". And it's spoken in both Germany and the Netherlands. If that was true the language should be famous! At least as famous as Sater Frisian. As a native speaker of Low Saxon I can assure you that no linguist with a sane mind would jump to the conclusion that the language of our "Aeres" pages can be "classified as Low Saxon". That's absurd by any linguistic measure. The connection to Limburgish is more plausible judging from Ooswesthoesbes newest contributions to the Wikia project. But we need to stress the word _newest_ contributions. 2009 Aeres is quite different from 2007 Aeres. While 2007 Aeres was a rough language with more Frisian character and many implausible English loans, 2009 Aeres is much more smooth, without many obvious loans and more Limburgish in character.
The article Aast-Ærisk even allows localizing the language: According to that article it is spoken in Groningen, Drenthe and Eastern Frisia. Every linguist with knowledge about the Germanic languages can assure you that the only languages spoken in this area are Low Saxon and the respective official state languages Dutch and German. From that article you could conclude that Aeres is some kind of mindgame "what would the people in that area speak like, if Frisian wouldn't have been replaced by Low Saxon several centuries ago?". That would fit the Aast-Ærisk article but would contradict statements made in other articles.
Sorry, if I'm harsh, but Aeres is so obvious fake, that it hurts my rational mind that anybody would even consider this is not fake. --::Slomox:: >< 19:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Slomox here. The fact that the previous discussions were archived without being closed doesn't indicate that the discussions were inconclusive, but merely that no one has gotten around to deleting the pages yet. The language is a one-man show; not only does it not have its own ISO code, there's no evidence it's a dialect or variety of another language that does; in fact, there's no evidence the language exists at all outside of Ooswesthoesbes's imagination. —Angr 14:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Slomox and Angr: you know both that I delete quite a lot. In this case I did not. You also know that the discussions here take a bit longer time than on - say - English or German Wiki, as the people do not come here that frequently. This discussion was interrupted beeng archived because somebody didn't know this and archived it simply. Therefore, although I probably think the same like you, I decided to wait a bit and to see what other users here say. Let me say: by the end of this week we shall do it. -jkb- 18:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I did not participate in the previous discussions, so as far as I'm concerned this discussion started Jan. 19. Perhaps someone erred in failing to delete these pages at the earlier time, but so what? That's no big deal. Just because some of us want a discussion to run its full course does not imply support for the Aeres language. There's no reason to have a panic attack when the material isn't deleted quickly enough. No harm is done by waiting. Eclecticology 21:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
deleted -jkb- 08:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

私たちの父よ

[edit]

I started this page almost 5 years ago and am the only editor of it. Frankly, I no longer remember where I got the translation from and cannot confirm that it's public domain. (Doubts have been raised to that effect on the talk page.) Meanwhile, Japanese Wikisource has its own page of the Lord's Prayer in Japanese, so this page is superfluous on top of being potentially a copyvio. —Angr 11:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK done -jkb- 14:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the redirect Watashitachi no chichi yo. Thanks! —Angr 19:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


February 2010

[edit]

Amaros Albanian texts

[edit]
I think I will delete it this afternoon, with the exception of Ndre Mjeda (author page) and Andrra e Jetës (Trina) (PD old). -jkb- 09:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
done, -jkb- 16:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. If somebody brings some new informations the pages can be undeleted very simply. -jkb- 16:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Korea's Nation Archery Game Rule

[edit]

Korea's Nation Archery Game Rule not appropriate because: 1. game rule - out of scope, 2. ko-WS exists, 3. no genuine source given (btw, it could be a copyright violation as well). Suggest to delete here. -jkb- 10:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one has been here for a long time, so it may be difficult to establish a source for this that would show that the text is an accurate one. However, there are several points where I would disagree.
  1. I see no basis for saying that game rules would be out of scope. If a particular text is otherwise allowable it seems arbitrary to exclude it on the sole basis that it is a set of game rules.
  2. That Korean or English Wikisource already exists does not address the problem of a multilingual page.
  3. The copyright on such a text is at least questionable. Here it is a matter of the information/expression divide. If this had to do with a proprietary game it would be easy to conclude that its rules are subject to the same copyright restrictions as the game itself. Here, however, we are dealing with a traditional game or sport whose rules have evolved over an extended period of time; this should make these rules uncopyrightable. The test for this kind of thing is whether the information can be rephrased in a different way without losing information. In matters of the wording of rules, any change would likely produce a different game.
Eclecticology 07:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can remember, 2006 as I formulated some guidelines for the new Czech Wikisource I read about game rules something somewhere. A game rule, found in internet, a paper or even on a back cover of a game is pretty problematic - I would say 100 % copyvio (no source, no author). If you find a book with game rule(s), with author that is 70 years pm (or another reason for PD), so in this moment you have not only a game rule but a historical document / text as well and we can publish it. This is not the case. Anyway, I made a notice in ko.source yesterday.
The problem with the multilingual pages: it was my idea somewhen in 2007 or so to create the category for multilingual texts Category:Multilingual. But it was a provisional solution and I was not happy about it. But we had such pages and they had to be categorized. I do not think they are helpful. Much more useful would be something like bilingual link - not only between different subdomains but between different pages here as well. I think we should avoid pages with more than one language (exceptions are possible, naturally). -jkb- 16:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, let me say that I speak with no particular attachment to this page, though I still think that your reasoning is inaccurate. "No source, no author" does not necessarily imply copyvio; it's simply inconclusive. The lack of a source is problematical in other ways: It suggests that we cannot rely on the accuracy of the quoted rules.

Similarly, if the rules are found in a book with unexpired copyright, that does not allow us to infer that the rules themselves are protected even when the rest of the book is. Did the author himself modify the rules? If so are they sufficiently different as to constitute an original work? Scrabble is still protected by copyright, and, since it is an original game, the rules inside the box cover are still protected. If, however, you buy a chess set for a beginner it will often include a simplified pamphlet about how to play chess. These are not the full rules; the pamphlet does not have enough originality to warrant its own copyright. That it might not be worth reproducing is an entirely different problem. If something is not copyrightable copyrights that never existed cannot expire.

I think that I am more supportive of your multilingual page tags than you are. :-) The Korean archery rules as here presented were almost certainly from a source that showed both languages. Literary works, especially poetry, are often produced with two languages on facing pages; it would be a shame to divide these onto separate projects just because they are in different languages. Beyond that I would encourage more multilingual pages as a tool for encouraging more translations. Eclecticology 18:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is allright what you write here. But let me say the following. If we decide not to publish here copyright violations but PDs only, wse must have some standards how to handle different texts uploaded here. I mean here on Oldwikisource, where we have much more problems to see what happens as on the language domains. There is a lot of languages that are not understood by any of the "old" users here. See the problems with the Albanian texts or sith the Georgian texts. All were clear copyright violations here, just by a chance I made some research and discovered that, although in the first moments the user claimed it is PD. So, we should have the same standards here like on the other projects at least, and that means, author + source + year or so. Not we should hope it is a PD even if it has no source etc., but the user who uploads it here must give us the informations. Might be it was a bilingual text in origin, might be it is old. But if I do not know it it is not clear i.e. it is not PD. By the way, sure, an author can modify the copyright and its rules - he can choose some free or more free licence. But he cannot say, my text ic protected for ever. And, the last point: when I buy a chess set with a short description of the play - so I do not see this as a text or a document for Wikisource. When I would buy seventeen sets, I would probably get seventeen different descriptions of the play. And, probably, all not free. That means (and this is what I wanted to say the last time): when we say we publish here free licensed texts only we must have some standards. When not, so OK, but it must be clearly said that even unclear Texts can stay here. I am afraid soon we would get serious problems. (I do not insist on that strong standards like admins on Commons sometimes do, but we need simply something.) OK, I will not delete the Korean text, but in my eyes it is a copyright violation till I see some more information. Regards and cheers, -jkb- 18:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to me, it is out of scope, and the copyright unclear. Yann 10:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't have any attachment to the page, what bothers me is the tendency to conflate the reasons for deletion. Yes, it's not sourced, and that alone makes it unreliable. To say that it is out of scope is arbitrary and capricious. I still view the copyright as highly questionable. Can the Archery Association, as the prima facie copyright owner really exercise the degree of originality needed for a copyright? Eclecticology 23:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. The source and copyright status of Korean and English texts are unclear while both languages have subdomains, though I do not consider a game rule out of scope.--Jusjih 03:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010

[edit]

Category:Kannada

[edit]

This has already been discussed once with no effect, so I'll try again - all content has been long transwikied to kn.wikisource, so this category should be emptied. -- Prince Kassad 18:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes see Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archive 2009#February 2009. -jkb- 19:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yann 14:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If no one objects, I can easily delete the whole category using a pywikipedia script. I might be nice to have a temporary bot flag on my account though to prevent flooding recent changes. Maximillion Pegasus 00:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vänrikki Stoolin tarinat: Maamme

[edit]

There is a Finnish Wikisource (although I don't think it existed in 2005 when this was created), and this page is redundant to . Jafeluv 13:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

deleted -jkb- 14:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
can stay here - it is pre 1923, -jkb- 14:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The last surviving author Otto Wille Kuusinen died in 1964. Finnish Wikisource once deleted the text there, so this domain will keep it here through 2034.--Jusjih 02:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
deleted -jkb- 14:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010

[edit]

Fader vår

[edit]

This is listed at User:ThomasBot/norwegian, but it's actually in Swedish and has been transferred to s:sv:Fader vår. Jafeluv 06:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tautiska Giesme

[edit]

Transferred to s:lt:Lietuvos Respublikos himnas. Jafeluv 06:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian texts transferred to ukwikisource

[edit]

Jafeluv 11:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All deleted. Eclecticology 00:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edits fully exported to English Wikisource

[edit]

--Jusjih 03:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

deleted -jkb- 08:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


June 2010

[edit]

Some unused files

[edit]

--Aleator (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily deleted File:Nietzsche1.jpg as a duplicate already moved from English Wikipedia to Wikimedia Commons. I will checked others later.--Jusjih 01:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
remainig pages and files deleted -jkb- 06:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valente caroll an duffy

[edit]

Attack page. Adambro 10:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

done -jkb- 10:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Philippines Private Investigators

[edit]

Cross-wiki spam. Adambro 10:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

done -jkb- 10:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tempo de estigxo

[edit]

Bad literation. Must be Category:Tempo de estiĝo Arno Lagrange ✉ 08:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK -jkb- 08:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource:Aŭtoroj

[edit]

We have Category:Aŭtoroj instead. Arno Lagrange ✉ 12:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK -jkb- 12:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kanioù Broadel

[edit]

Wrong spelling, the B should be in lower case. Empty. See Category:Kanioù broadel. Kouign-amann 15:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok -jkb- 19:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Olivier Souêtre, Olier Souetr

[edit]

I forgot the Author: prefix. Kouign-amann 17:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok -jkb- 19:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mass deletions needed

[edit]

The following deletions must be done:

See also my remarks on Wikisource:Scriptorium#Remaining mass deletions. -jkb- 08:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

[edit]

Dañvez e brezhoneg war ar genrouedad

[edit]

Spelling mistake. Renamed to the correct title, Danvez e brezhoneg war ar genrouedad (without a tilde). Please delete the useless redirect. Kouign-amann 21:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok -jkb- 23:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


El suicidio

[edit]

El suicidio and now created parts El suicidio I to El suicidio XIII are probably Spanish and should be deleted in this case. I asked the User User talk:24.232.118.183 for details. -jkb- 23:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish 100%. No source, no translator, etc. Unformated. Agree deletion. -Aleator (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for help, -jkb- 21:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

[edit]

Take up the cudgels in defence of hungarian

[edit]

Take up the cudgels in defence of hungarian is an English-language translation by a modern author, once transferred to en.ws and deleted here, then undeleted for the purposes of s:en:Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2008-02#Take up the cudgels in defence of Hungarian. The discussion resulted in the page being deleted from en.ws because of unclear license. This should probably be re-deleted here as well. Jafeluv 11:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Temporarily restoring the edit history (in 2007 !). Even if the text is really free, it shoul be undelete on en.ws not here. Cdlt, VIGNERON 09:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ŝablono

[edit]

Useless created while we already have Category:Ŝablonoj

Category:Teksto en Esperanto

[edit]

We have Category:Tekstoj en Esperanto

Category:Category:Historio de Belgio

[edit]

"Category" twice Arno Lagrange ✉ 10:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cdlt, VIGNERON 14:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010

[edit]

Category:Nordfriisk/Mooring

[edit]

Category was replaced by [[Category:Mooring]]. Thanks! --Murma174 09:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deletion_requests

[edit]

The category needs to be cleaned--Andrijko Z. 05:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 2010

[edit]

Море пиле

[edit]

Bulgarian has its own Wikisource, and this already exists at s:bg:Море пиле. Jafeluv 11:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

deleted Candalua 15:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expellite the deberie and merit of joint family and nüßler family with similar example

[edit]

Copied from [1], no indication of PD status or previous publication. Jafeluv 19:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, its look like a forum. If it free, it should go to english wikisource. VIGNERON 13:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pakkotyöhön tuomittuja Vuolelaisia

[edit]

Transferred to s:fi:Pakkotyöhön tuomittuja vuolelaisia. Jafeluv 12:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

deleted Candalua 15:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To a Haggis

[edit]

Redundant with s:en:Address to a Haggis. Jafeluv 12:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

deleted Candalua 15:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Versi Ekumenikal 1975

[edit]

Redundant with s:en:Nicene Creed. Note that there's also a Versi Ekumenikal 1988 which should be either transferred to enwikisource or deleted if it already exists there. Jafeluv 12:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

deleted Versi Ekumenikal 1975 Candalua 15:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the Ecumenical: Pan-Deism?

[edit]

This is in English and already exists on enwikisource (s:en:Beyond the Ecumenical: Pan-Deism?). The copyright status is currently being examined at s:en:Wikisource:Possible copyright violations#Beyond the Ecumenical: Pan-Deism?, but either way the text belongs on enwikisource, not here. Jafeluv 12:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

deleted Candalua 15:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Internacionala

[edit]

Transferred to s:sr:Internacionala. Jafeluv 08:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, VIGNERON 13:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eneido prefix:Wikisource:Scriptorium

[edit]

Mistake in title. The text is already on the correct page at Eneido/Kanto Unua. Jafeluv 08:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cdlt, VIGNERON 14:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ia:

[edit]

Empty category, moved to Category:Interlingua. Jafeluv 08:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. VIGNERON 14:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad

[edit]

Copyright IslamReligion.com, all rights reserved.[2] In any case, English has its own Wikisource. Jafeluv 08:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Moreover, the text is still on en:User:Sayedahmed history. Cdlt, VIGNERON 14:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tsheljabinskin keskitysleirillä menehtyneitä Vuolelaisia

[edit]

Redundant with s:fi:Tsheljabinskin keskitysleirillä menehtyneitä vuolelaisia. Jafeluv 22:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, VIGNERON 19:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zach guille

[edit]

Apart from being in English, this is out of our scope as an original text and possibly just a hoax. Jafeluv 22:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, --LadyInGrey 02:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Nguyen royalty generation poem

[edit]

Redundant with s:vi:Đế hệ thi. Jafeluv 01:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, VIGNERON 19:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Abkhazian

[edit]

The name of the language Abkhaz, so the correct category is Category:Abkhaz. Jafeluv 13:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Cdlt, VIGNERON 08:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Квітка-Основ'яненко Григорій, Конотопська відьма

[edit]

Ukranian page that already exists at s:uk:Конотопська відьма. Jafeluv 14:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, VIGNERON 19:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Výlomky z Jánošíka

[edit]

Slovak-language page, transferred to s:sk:Výlomky z Jánošíka. Jafeluv 14:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Jusjih (talk • contribs • global contribs). Cdlt, VIGNERON 19:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander lapusneanul

[edit]

Test page. Jafeluv 13:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, a galon, VIGNERON 13:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manchu/Dao De Jing

[edit]

Redundant copy of Dao De Jing. Jafeluv 23:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done (and I discover that there is still people speaking manchu ! Great). Cdlt, VIGNERON 09:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The New Testament (Byzantine text-type)

[edit]

Also the talk page. The text already exists in its complete form at s:el:Κατά Ματθαίον. Jafeluv 23:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cdlt, VIGNERON 10:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kalendar

[edit]

Exists at s:hr:Kalendar. Jafeluv 07:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, VIGNERON 09:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jozua

[edit]

Transferred to s:hr:Jošua (back in 2005). Jafeluv 07:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, VIGNERON 10:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glosar Starog Zavjeta

[edit]

Exists at s:hr:Glosar Starog zavjeta. Jafeluv 07:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, VIGNERON 10:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Padre nostra

[edit]

There's already a Category:Pater noster. Jafeluv 09:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can’t we do a soft redirect (like on Commons) ? Cdlt, VIGNERON 09:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually a good idea. Do we have a template for that? If not, we could always use Commons:Template:Category redirect or . Jafeluv 10:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Importation from Commons done (tell me if I've forgot a languages, i'm not pretty sure to have it all). Cdlt, VIGNERON 14:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! But why is the default template in Low Saxon? Not exactly the most common language in the project, I presume :) Jafeluv 14:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently {{int:lang}} works differently here than on Commons. Here it returns "<Lang>", while on Commons it's "en" (for me at least). Jafeluv 15:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keyakinan Athanasius (bahasa Inggeris)

[edit]

Exists at s:en:Athanasian Creed. Jafeluv 13:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, VIGNERON 14:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Piagam Madinah

[edit]

Exists at s:id:Piagam Madinah. (Deletion was proposed on the talk page already in 2008.) Jafeluv 13:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, VIGNERON 14:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ambala main page

[edit]

Ambala is a city in India. I don't know if there's a language called that, but even if there is these pages have nothing to do with it. These are simply a copy of the main page of the Latin Wikipedia created in 2008 by an IP that hasn't edited since. Jafeluv 18:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: It seems there actually is an Ambala language.) Jafeluv 07:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
There is a language but with only 1660 speakers according to ethnologue !
A galon, VIGNERON 10:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010

[edit]

Fasile project

[edit]

This appears to be a self-invented language. Note that en:Fasile language was deleted. -- Prince Kassad 20:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, VIGNERON 10:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Konstytucja

[edit]

moved to Polish Wikisource -- Prince Kassad 07:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shu jing

[edit]

Table of contents for an English-language page that's already on en.wikisource as Classic of History. Jafeluv 09:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images from De Occulta Philosophia

[edit]

De Occulta Philosophia was transferred to enwikisource five years ago, so there's no longer any use for the images. Jafeluv 11:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. They are on Commons now. --Zyephyrus 15:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my mistake. There are 94 files but not the same ones. I will undelete them. --Zyephyrus 15:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done: they ought to be on Commons, don’t you think so? --Zyephyrus 15:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. I just assumed they had been transferred when the work was moved to en.ws. Jafeluv 15:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed this entry, I'll try to take a look at these and clean them up as I'm working (very slowly) on this text on en.ws--Doug.(talk • contribs) 06:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

[edit]

Deletion category

[edit]

Clean, please Category:Deletion_requests this category, there are too many articles for deletion. Thanks.--Andrijko Z. 07:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that a lot of files in this category. I just delete all the "Dünnää gagauzların I-ci kongresi ..." and some more. Cdlt, VIGNERON 10:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lorelei

[edit]

The German author Heinrich Heine died in 1856. The contents should likely be sent to language subdomains if with verifiable sources and copyright licenses of the translations.--Jusjih 19:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the annoying things about oldwikisource is that it isn't possible to add interlanguage links in an "Other languages" section. The following versions exist:
As for the other languages here at OldWikisource, I'd say keep until they can be moved to their host languages' sites. I believe that Wikisource does allow original translations (i.e. translations by Wikisourcerors, not previously published) of works. —Angr 11:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then I am withdrawing this nomination and letting anyone to clear texts that belong to subdomains, subject to different local policies regarding Wikisource translations and pre-1923 works still copyrighted at home.--Jusjih 02:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archive_2010&oldid=1067408"