Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2016-08

Kept

Diplomacy and the War

The following discussion is closed:

Kept--Jusjih (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The work is a long copy and paste of an OCR text with headers and footers. It is ugly and has not changed in its context in 8 years. I see little value in retaining works like this when they are not maintained, and pretty well have no hope of being maintained. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It is theoretically possible to improve it by adding the djvu from https://archive.org/details/diplomacywar00andruoft Hrishikes (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, and if someone takes on that responsibility, and steps through the process, then that would overtake a deletion discussion. That hasn't happened since the OCR was copy and pasted, and there has to be a line in the sand somewhere. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

It also hasn't happened in the nine months since this was brought up. BD2412 T 18:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Index:Jo-Jo/11

The following discussion is closed:

kept, request withdrawn

Out of scope?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

How? How is it different from the other works of the same nature? If you are going to nominate things, please come up with a reasoned statement against WS:WWI

See Category:Comics and review our scope about published works. Also see Category:Film. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawn ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

An Ainu–English–Japanese Dictionary

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. Pages that are full of red links may be tagged for clean-up rather than deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I am trying to work out what we can do with An Ainu–English–Japanese Dictionary / Special:PrefixIndex/An Ainu–English–Japanese Dictionary. The pages have not been touched for six year, they are very incomplete, and transclude numbers of little pages of which I cannot locate, and as such the pages are full of red links, and make the pages unapproachable. If we cannot repair/resurrect this work, then maybe we can delete it, as I cannot see anyone else taking on this as a project, — billinghurst sDrewth 12:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Author:Gelon II of Syracuse

The following discussion is closed:

keep, convert to portal

No works. The only claim to fame (and reason the page was created here): Archimedes' "Psammite" is dedicated to him. So there is no point in converting him to portal either. The only existing link here to be converted into link to wikipedia. --- Captain Nemo (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Polybius and Livy both wrote about him, in addition to Archimedes' dedication. Not worthy of a portal? Hesperian 05:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Help:Author pages suggests creating portal if a person "is "highly notable", the subject of one or more works". Gelo is only mentioned by Livy, who literally mentions 1000s of people. That doesn't necessarily mean Wikisource should have a portal for each, no? What about every person mentioned in "Dictionary of National Biography"? --- Captain Nemo (talk) 05:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Personally I would like that when Joe Public types "Gelon II" into our search box, they are taken straight to a useful summary of textual material relevant to "Gelon II". I hold this opinion regardless of how notable or obscure "Gelon II" is. Hesperian 06:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I see your point (and to some extent sympathetic). But why do you care only about "Gelon II". What if Joe Public types "Hieron" or "Mennes", or "Sister Annunciata"? To follow your logic, every person mentioned in every book that is hosted (or could be hosted) here must have author or portal page. And, every person mentioned in every book hosted should have on their page back links to every mention of them in every book hosted here (or at least summary of all books that mention them). That is a discussion that belongs somewhere else, I think. I thought this page is the place to discuss deletion with respect to currently existing policies. And my claim is that Mr. Gelo having portal page seems not to be directly supported by current policies, hence nomination for deletion. --- Captain Nemo (talk) 06:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC).

In that case I oppose deletion because it is a tiny step in the wrong direction. Hesperian 06:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

But it's a big step in ignoring existing policies:) (Sorry, could not abstain from this silly joke). Captain Nemo (talk) 06:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

(I don't think I shall ever be able to forgive you for wedging me in a decision where I find I have to agree with Hesperian) but in this particular instance I do. If a contributor has gone to the effort of researching and keying in an Author: page I consider that dedication alone raises the bar for deleting it again very high. Deletion is easy and thus should not be taken lightly. There is an argument for not creating this entry and advising a new editor against doing so but now that it is done leave it alone. I  Oppose this deletion also.

Quite aside from the above, if you are so keen to delete this entry why did you perform four edits upon it (not counting this deletion request) over the last year or so? Why the sudden desire to expunge? AuFCL (talk) 07:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I retract my proposal. Will convert poor Gelo to portal. @AuFCL: my previous edits have been part of AWB-assisted maintenance (add PD-old template, rm sister links, etc) when I haven't paid much attention to actual content of the page. But now I am on the mission, cleaning category:ancient authors. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 08:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The Prince

The following discussion is closed:

Kept as versions page —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the point for having a versions page for The Prince, written by Niccolò Machiavelli. If you go to the author's page, I have listed the versions of the texts there (instead of being on the versions page). I did this because different versions of works by the same author were already there, and it was just a bit unclear as to why the work titled The Prince was linked to a separate list. This is why I wish to delete a now unnecessary versions page. Aphillipsmusique (talk) 4:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. I support having versions pages for works in preference to listing versions on author pages. Hesperian 05:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Wikisource supports Versions pages for several reasons. For one, it is the anchor point for wikipedia links here from their article about the work, as well as for the Wikidata item about The Prince. The author page for Machiavelli has a separate data item, so the only way to be certain users on other language Wikisources know that we have English translations is to have that common anchor point for the work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Strong oppose also. Versions pages are how we do this. I've even cleaned up the versions page. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• opppose there is sense to our having disambiguation pages, and of three types — different works, different versions, different translations. It provides something in the main (or pertinent) namespace to anchor and to search, and it is a standard, and it enables flexibility to listings. We know that with Chekov that the translations lengthen. Also with links from Wikidata, that would be the page to which we link for the general work rather than the individual editions, so it is a pivotal page. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: @Beleg Tâl: @Hesperian: @EncycloPetey: Then does this mean that some of Niccolò Machiavelli's other works, which include The Art of War and Discourses on Livy need a versions or translations page as well? Aphillipsmusique (talk) 1:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Hesperian 01:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Hesperian: If I create interwiki links for translations pages on Niccolò Machiavelli's other works The Art of War and Discourses on Livy, they already have links to disambiguation pages or actual translations themselves. Do I create a translations page for The Art of War with this interwiki link: The Art of War (translations)? I know this is not a request to be made on this wiki page, but is it possible to move the current work displayed on the interwiki link Discourses on Livy to Discourses on Livy (Neville)? Aphillipsmusique (talk) 5:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

You would need to move The Art of War (Machiavelli) to something else, say The Art of War (Neville), then make The Art of War (Machiavelli) be the translations page. However, as far as I can tell Neville's translation is the only translation of this work currently on Wikisource, so I don't see any reason to move it at the moment. The interwiki link would be to it:Dell'arte della guerra. The same goes for Discourses on Livy. If you don't know how to move a page, see mw:Help:Moving a page. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Deleted

Template:PD-old-auto

The following discussion is closed:

deleted, now progressed

Depreceated, and uploaders should be using whatever Commons now has.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey, we started the Pd/1923 and Pd/1996 series, and it was migrated to Commons by the author of the templates. Kudos to the initial idea, and we can happily cull the old template. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Index:Felisberto narraciones dp.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

non-English work, no value in transwiki as Commons files

Non English work, Transwikit to es or pt? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

yes, looks like Spanish to me —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The Cub Scout and Brownie Law

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted BD2412 T 11:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

There's no source, no license, and the translation looks like Google Translate level.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

 Delete — I feel like this kind of stuff shouldn't have to have a consensus for deletion. But I guess better safe than sorry. --Rochefoucauld (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to add 4.0 CC-BY, because it's my own translation from Polish, but I don't know how looks like an suitable Template. Superjurek (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

As I know wikisourcers' translations are accepted. Superjurek (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

First, we strongly encourage us having a scanned source for translations, or at least a transcribed copy of the original. Secondly, we need to know the copyright status of the original. Lastly, I'm not sure you should be translating into English; it's not a good fluent translation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Well – first, the original text is here. Secondly law acts published by ZHP are in Public Domain, simillary to government's acts in USA. Lastly, I am surprised that 6 sentenceses could be translated influently... Probably I don't know English, then you might indicate me the lacks of fluidity. Superjurek (talk) 08:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Superjurek, how are ZHP texts public domain? They are not laws of the land, which apply to everyone and are often given exemptions in copyright law, and they are not created in USA. Some part of Polish Copyright Law must provide an exemption for this type of work...? Otherwise we need to delete. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Superjurek: We need to the legal background to the claim that the identified pages are in the common domain. Without support for that claim, all we can do is apply the known legal argument of copyright. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The Scout law and promise, as used in the United Kingdom are here. Given the number of variations and copyright problems, I think that the Scout Promise is a suitable artcile for WIkipedia, not for Wikisource. Martinvl (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

When the People Rule

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 04:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

This page has not had a license for almost seven years. The author is still alive so we can't make a guess of PD status. Green Giant (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Are there any vagaries for copyright for Cuba, Castro v the US? — billinghurst sDrewth 02:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

No. Both the US and Cuba are part of the Berne Convention, and the UCC Geneva before it. They're no different in this respect then the UK is.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

In that case it looks like delete — billinghurst sDrewth 06:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Between the Danube and the Black Sea or Five Years in Bulgaria

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted

This work has the preface only added and it is unsupported by scans. The work is abandoned, of next to no value, and the main and subpage should be deleted, and we can restart if the text is wanted. It does not seem otherwise worthy of recovery. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing it is easy: https://archive.org/details/betweendanubean00barkgoog and https://archive.org/details/betweendanubean01barkgoog Hrishikes (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing isn't the issue. At the moment it is an excerpt of the preface, and it cannot be said to being worked upon, or available for others to pick it up and work upon it. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Deleted as abandoned early-stage work.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 12:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Defence of Francis V excerpt

The following discussion is closed:

random or selected sections of a larger work

This long-hosted excerpt seems to be outside of our scope and explicitly excluded as it is a smaller portion of a bigger work. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Deutsche Pomologie/Birnen/Baronsbirn

The following discussion is closed:

text not in English, random or selected sections of a larger work

An isolated page of a work that is unsupported by a scan. The work has no root page, and apparently has been abandoned as it ha snot progressed in years. It is currently just an excerpt. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's right to delete it as an excerpt, as it is entirely possible for someone to take over and add the rest. However, it's in German, so belongs on German Wikisource, and therefore ought to be deleted regardless. —Beleg Tâl (talk)

Census reports Tenth census. June 1, 1880, Volume 4

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted

This is a transcription that was started 4 years ago, and for which we have no source document. It isn't clear whether it is part of a census or the intent of the work. To me looking at it, I believe that it is stalled and moribund, and with no source, and in poor condition that we would be better to delete it and let a source be found if it is to be resurrected. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Here is a snippet view. It may be possible to obtain a workable copy through the expenditure of arduous time more productively spent elsewhere. BD2412 T 14:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• Deleted as abandoned stub.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 12:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The Purpose Driven Church

The following discussion is closed.

1995 book, no content. Captain Nemo (talk) 01:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. The underlying work is ©1995, and therefore outside our scope. BD2412 T 01:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. I'd say it is in our scope, as a work of some notability. However, any content would be a copyright infringement.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I thought works under copyright were outside our scope. BD2412 T 12:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Where does WS:SCOPE say that? WS:COPY says "All works on Wikisource must be in the public domain or released under a license compatible with the free content definition.", which seems to be our rules on the matter. If this were released under the CC-BY-SA license or something similar, the copyright would not be a problem. (There are other issues of scope, that aren't worth arguing IMO given that we don't have a free license.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
      • In other words, WS:COPY puts those works outside our scope. BD2412 T 22:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
        • I would not agree that WS:COPY is a statement of scope, but that definitional argument aside, WS:COPY specifically says that works under copyright can be on Wikisource: "works on Wikisource must be ... or released under a license compatible with the free content definition." You can't release a work not under copyright under a license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Henry Lawson poetry

The following discussion is closed:

deleted, now progressed

In accordance with recent discussions under the topic "Authorship categories" I request that this Category be deleted as not being in line with current Wikisource editing policies. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 11:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Deleted.— Mpaa (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Henry Kendall poetry

The following discussion is closed:

Speedy deleted non-controversial request. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

In accordance with recent discussions under the topic "Authorship categories" I request that this Category be deleted as not being in line with current Wikisource editing policies. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Done -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Banjo Paterson poetry

The following discussion is closed:

Speedy deleted non-controversial request. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

In accordance with recent discussions here regarding specific author categories I request that this empty category now be deleted. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 02:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Done -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

World Calorie Currency

The following discussion is closed:

deleted, out of scope — billinghurst sDrewth 02:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Publication added by author. The original paper was at Commons (though not as scan) and has been deleted as self-published. there is no evidence that the work has been published and presumably should be deleted as not complying to WS:WWI. I looked at the deleted file at Commons, and there is no evidence of published work, and only has three references which would be well under the mark for a referred paper. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete — I note that it has also been self-published in Academia, on Google Books, and in the International Journal of Management and Commerce Innovations. The first and the last have copyright claims, so we can't keep this version under that criterion. On investigation of the tagline Royal Economic Society, I found that the RES runs an annual essay competition for A-Level students, which is about the style and level of this essay. This was not one of the winning essays in the last several years. As such, it is outside our scope. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The Chemical History of a Candle

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

proposed for deletion - old pages / replaced by transcluded pages:

• The_Chemical_History_of_a_Candle/A_Candle:_The_Flame—Its_Sources—Structure—Mobility—Brightness
• The_Chemical_History_of_a_Candle/A_Candle:_Brightness_of_the_Flames—Air_Necessary_for_Combustion—Production_of_Water
• The_Chemical_History_of_a_Candle/Products:_Water_from_the_Combustion—Nature_of_Water—A_Compound—Hydrogen
• The_Chemical_History_of_a_Candle/Hydrogen_in_the_Candle—Burns_into_Water—The_Other_Part_of_Water—Oxygen
• The_Chemical_History_of_a_Candle/Oxygen_Present_in_the_Air—Nature_of_the_Atmosphere—Its_Properties—Other_Products_from_the_Candle—Carbonic_Acid—Its_Properties
• The_Chemical_History_of_a_Candle/Carbon_or_Charcoal—Coal-Gas—Respiration_and_its_Analogy_to_the_Burning_of_a_Candle—Conclusion

These pages are no longer linked to. Greetings, --Dick Bos (talk) 12:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Ancient History of the Deccan.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

deleted

Technical request : this file (File:Ancient History of the Deccan.djvu) is now in public domain, I undelete the global version on Commons, the local version on en.ws can now be deleted. @Hrishikes, @Billinghurst:. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 11:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Done -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Index:Mrs. Beeton's Book of Household Management (Part 1).djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Speedy deleted

Migrated to single volume. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Index:Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management (Part 2).djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Speedy deleted

Migrated to single volume. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Index:Anatomy of the Human Body (Part 1).djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Speedy deleted

Migrated to single volume at Index:Anatomy of the Human Body(Lewis-1918).djvu, and associated Page namespace efforts. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Index:Anatomy of the Human Body (Part 2).djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Speedy deleted

Migrated to single volume at Index:Anatomy of the Human Body(Lewis-1918).djvu, and associated Page namespace efforts. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikisource talk:Authors-Waring

The following discussion is closed:

speedy deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I messed up on an edit and this page came up to create and I created it, but I don't think it fits other stuff here. Outlier59 (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Speedied. Hesperian 04:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You can use {{sdelete}} for this kind of thing; I use it all the time because I mess up all the time :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Index:Pro Patria, Coates, 1917

The following discussion is closed:

speedy deleted under reason F8 —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I mentioned my intention to replace the above index with an alternate one at the Scriptorium:

"A little early, but I would eventually like to nominate Pro Patria (1917) by Florence Earle Coates for April 2017 FT (it would mark a hundred year anniversary of publication, 'satisfy' Poetry Month as well as highlight Pres. Wilson's Address to Congress on 2 April 1917). The current Index is made up of individual jpg images, but I was thinking about a complete re-do using a different source (djvu). I would also combine the seven poems & Wilson excerpt into one MS page instead of using individual pages per item. I would like opinions on the prospect of doing this. It would involve page deletions and redirect updates, etc. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)"

I have since added the new Index and transcluded Pages into the Main. Original Mainspace pages associated with the original Index were deleted after a thorough check of "what links here." The only remaining links to the deleted Title page (Pro Patria (1917)) appear at Wikisource:Works/2011 and Template:New texts/2011/06. Redirect updates have been completed. All that remains is to delete the original Index and associated pages, but I am not sure what protocol is for doing so. Hence the request here. Thanks for any direction/criticism. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

These can be speedy deleted under reason F8. I've found it best to delete the pages from the Page: namespace before deleting the Index. Otherwise it's easy to miss a Page, because they've been orphaned. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thank you, Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Hazaar Aankhaa Yee Aankhaamaa

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Unless the work concerned is Creative Commons, I feel that this may be better suited as a Wikipedia article rather than a Wikisource item, given the scope of the project. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't read the Nepalese, but here's the work in question, and there's definitely a © on the 4th page, even though the entry is labelled CC-BY-NC-SA. First published 2003. I imagine there's no extant English translation either. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Vatican City Holy Vessels of the Jewish Temple

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. If the user wants the text, maybe move to user subpage.--Jusjih (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Appears to be self-published; uploaded to commons as "own work". —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Index:City of Lawrence, Kansas City Code, Chapter 2.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

deleted excerpt and uncertain copyright, not US-Gov — billinghurst sDrewth 07:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

This index and its three transcribed pages are an excerpt from a work, rather than the whole work, which puts them outside of WS:WWI. I see no evidence that the work will be added and completed. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

 Delete Excerpt, also the Commons license may be wrong, City/State code not Federal. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Index:Excerpt from A Narrative Briefly Descriptive of the Period 1919 to 1936 regarding Al Capone.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, excerpt. — BD2412 T 00:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I am putting before the community 7 pages (validated, though not transcluded) of an extract of a report from Intelligence Unit, Bureau of Internal Revenue. It has a cover and then pages 24-29 of a report of unknown length. WS:WWI says that we don't do extracts, and this is not a complete document, that said it may be complete in its part. It has been transcribed for a long period, though not transcluded to main ns. so no one is relying upon the work as a standard reference. Thoughts of other users would be appreciated. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

 Delete for reasons given —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

 Delete The complete report would be better ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. BD2412 T 13:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@BD2412: So... um... close this discussion? Outlier59 (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

You mean, like this? BD2412 T 00:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you need that "text=" parameter for it to work right. Outlier59 (talk) 10:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Documents of the Irish Republic (1916-1922)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

1) Category is empty. 2) Topic is overly narrow. calebjbaker (talk) 02:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

•  Delete — billinghurst sDrewth 01:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Delete -- Outlier59 (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Author:Unknown Ancient Sarvastivadin

The following discussion is closed:

deleted per consensus — billinghurst sDrewth 01:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I have declined to speedy delete this, and am bringing it here for community guidance. Hesperian 04:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

General idea can be had at w:Sarvastivada. Hrishikes (talk) 04:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

 Delete there's no reason to have a separate Author page for an anonymous author because they were part of a school of thought (Sarvastivada). Otherwise, should we not also create Author:Unknown Stoic Author, Author:Unknown Gnostic Author &c.? For most of these we just use {{anon}} and note in the work's header that the author is unknown but belonged to a certain school of thought. It would be different if the author of the Heart Sutra were known specifically by this name, as is the case with some authors in Category:Anonymous authors, but as far as I can tell this is not the case here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Global warming

The following discussion is closed:

deleted — billinghurst sDrewth 01:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Do we need this empty category?--Jusjih (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

 Delete Outlier59 (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Ebionites according to the Church Fathers

The following discussion is closed:

deleted — billinghurst sDrewth 01:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

It appears to be some sort of synthesis of quotes from the Ante-Nicene Fathers and Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers series. Prosody (talk)

 Delete —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

 Delete Incomplete, unsourced, no talk page discussion. -- Outlier59 (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Index:Life and Select Literary Remains of Sam Houston of Texas.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied under F8 Replacement version Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned on its talk page, the source uploaded to Commons with several pages missing. A new correct file is uploaded at Index:Life and Select Literary Remains of Sam Houston of Texas (1884).djvu. Please delete Index:Life and Select Literary Remains of Sam Houston of Texas.djvu Maile66 (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Other

Biblical figures who are not authors

The following discussion is closed:

non-authors have been moved to portal space —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The following Biblical figures have author pages, and I am quite certain that no works have ever been ascribed to them:

• Author:Adam
• Author:Abraham
• Author:Elijah
• Author:Enoch
• Author:Gideon
• Author:Isaac
• Author:Jacob
• Author:Japhet
• Author:Judah
• Author:Shem
• Author:Lamech
• Author:Micaiah

—Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Discovered the Book of Enoch attributed to Enoch; that's one down. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The Jewish Virtual Library says "Books were attributed to pagan authors, and names drawn from the repertoire of biblical personalities, such as Adam, Noah, Enoch, Abraham, Moses, Elijah, Ezekiel, Baruch, and Jeremiah." Wikipedia has articles on w:Apocalypse of Elijah, w:Apocalypse of Adam, w:Testament of Isaac, w:Testament of Abraham, and a bunch more in w:Category:Old Testament Apocrypha. "Quite certain" seems way overconfident here. (As a side-note, w:Lamech is a disambiguation page to two Biblical fellows, and Author:Lamech says nothing about which it's meant to cover.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Without specifically 're-investigating', my understanding of biblical history is that the book of Enoch is actually considered to be of his authorship, but that the others are not reliably attributed to the named person, but instead later anonymous writings. Revent (talk) 05:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Enoch, the great-grandfather of Noah? Let's just say that belief in his existence is a minority position and in his authorship even more so. IMO, works attributed to an author should be found on their page, particularly if we have no better authorship information.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, my comment (like I noted, without re-investigating) can be take as an expression of dubiousness toward the other rather than of advocating that one in particular. Revent (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

To make it more clear.... my understanding is that the 'authorship' of Enoch is the best supported of them all, not that it is itself particularly well-supported. Revent (talk) 07:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Even more clarity... I an not claiming that the Book of Enoch is the work of a person named "Enoch", or even of a individual author, merely that my impression is that of all of the named works, it is the most likely to be of truly ancient authorship, and thus the most reasonable to describe as the work of a single 'truly anonymous' author. Revent (talk) 09:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

It is my opinion that if a work is traditionally attributed to a certain historical or semi-historical figure, then that figure should have an Author page linking to the work, even as an attribution. See, for example, Author:Moses, who is listed as the attributed author of the Pentateuch even though he certainly did not write them. Similarly, Author:Paul of Tarsus makes reference to apocryphal works supposedly by Paul, and mention of Hebrews which is no longer believed to have been written by him. It should be clear that these are attributions, but they should still be listed. Thus: the Book of Enoch is actually attributed to Enoch, the great-grandfather of Noah. Whether he was actually the author or whether he even existed seems moot to me; he is named as the author and should be mentioned as such.

The other works, however: maybe some of them are attributed to their namesakes, but others aren't. For example, the Book of Ruth is attributed to Author:Samuel, not to Ruth herself. Similarly, the Apocalypse of Elijah is about Elijah, but it doesn't seem to be commonly or traditionally attributed to him, at least not from what I got from Wikipedia or a quick Google search. More research would need to be done to ascertain whether any books are actually supposed or attributed to be written by these people. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

You explain it better than I did... the Book of Enoch was almost certainly not the work of 'Noah's grandfather Enoch', but has been traditionally attributed to him since ancient times by the Jewish tradition and both the Ethiopian and Eritrean churches, and Enoch is quoted by name in the Epistle of Jude, which itself dates to the first century. It seems reasonable to thus 'attribute' it to him, with possibly some kind of notation that the "Enoch" the work is attributed to is believed to actually be multiple unknown authors using that name. Revent (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this. Without getting too far into encyclopedic territory, we should do our best to explain the scholarly consensus as to the authorship of works like these, and can use the author pages for the "traditional" authors to do so. BD2412 T 03:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Early Jewish Writings.com on the Apocalypse of Elijah: "It is wise to be hesitant in identifying this quotation with the Apocalypse of Elijah since it is not found in the Coptic or Hebrew texts, and because there were other compositions pseudonymously attributed to Elijah, although some are now lost." I fail to see the value in nitpicking every last point; do you really honestly believe there's no work in the world that's attributed only to Elijah? If you think that more research would be needed, then withdraw this and go and do it. Until the research is done, I repeat my quote above: "Books were attributed to ... names drawn from the repertoire of biblical personalities, such as Adam, Noah, Enoch, Abraham, Moses, Elijah, Ezekiel, Baruch, and Jeremiah." For the majority of the names you brought up, there's no reason to doubt that there's works attributed to them from anonymous authors. --Prosfilaes (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, Author:Lamech refers to w:Lamech (father of Noah), as evidenced by those texts linking to it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

All of these "authors" (and several more New Testament characters found in Category:Biblical figures are definitely notable w.r.t to local criteria. So none should be deleted (but it does not mean that creation of pages for every biblical character should be encouraged!!!) The more relevant question (should not be raised here, though:) is in which namespace these characters should reside. I don't think it is possible to draw the hard line here, unfortunately. For Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), maybe keep prophets and minor prophets as authors and the rest as portals. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC).

I am starting to feel like a broken record here. As a special case of "(any) figures who are not authors" we need to reserve some kind of method of recording the fact that somebody has undertaken the research to establish that a given entity produced no published works...even if only to save the next poor sap going through the same exercise over and over again just because some "purist" decided to delete the prior record. If this is a plea to deaf ears then knock yourselves out in pointless busy-work. Author space is beginning to seem unwanted; yet Wikidata remains in flux and is not as simple a "replacement" as propaganda would like it to seen to be. AuFCL (talk) 08:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the defining point should be whether they have authorship or not (and traditional attribution should count for this, as discussed above re: Enoch). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

And just because we can create a Portal doesn't mean that we should. There should be a definite value in having the Portal, such as having actual content. A page that is content-free is not a Portal simply because it resides in that namespace. Creating a lot of Portals with no information merely cheapens the value of Wikisource, as users will follow a link here only to discover there is no content. When that happens, people are less likely to follow links in future. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Figures who have no authorship, and are also not particularly noteable (e.g. Barjesus) have no business being in a portal. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

With respect several of the above arguments only work from a "perfect hindsight" perspective. Remembering that WS is a wiki one should in fairness apply wiki-principles to the evolution of a position as well.

To expand imagine a casual proofreader or validator of a given work coming across a piece of text stating "Fred Jones, M.A. Cambridge" was an important influence to that work. Not knowing anything whatsoever about "Fred Jones" does the proofreader (A) stop to research them; (B) ignore them because "policy" or (C) make some kind of link?

Option (A) disrupts proofreading flow; (B) loses an opportunity to make connections; and (C) might turn out to be blue (and still might link to the wrong place! There might be multiple "Fred Jones"'?) Are such links only to be applied retrospectively by designated trusted curators (and where do they get their hints as to fertile areas for maintenence?). If so officially declare (B) policy and be done with the whole mess.

Finally if the fact has been established that "Fred Jones" was a nobody unworthy of further effort: isn't it completely counter-productive not to record that somewhere so that future repetitions of this debacle do not recur? Right at present I find the potential for endless churn without overall quality improvement is simply depressing.

My last word on this issue is that if anybody takes the effort to note something as potentially worth following up the community owes it to that person to treat their notation with respect. Improve the notation by all means but equally condemn deleting or hiding that notation as an irresponsible act. (Per the old sad joke: "This matter does not concern you, erase your initials and initial your erasure.") AuFCL (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and would add that we are not talking about "nobodies" here, but (at least) notable literary characters. If someone were to come to Wikisource looking for The Dynamics of an Asteroid by Professor James Moriarty, we might like to let them know that although this book would certainly be in the public domain if it existed, it does not exist, and was in fact a device invented by Arthur Conan Doyle for his Sherlock Holmes series. BD2412 T 13:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: AuFCL: If the "casual proofreader" has created the link because they did not bother to do any research, and someone then does the research, it would be irresponsible and wasteful to then not make use of that research. This has nothing to do with whether a person / character / publisher is a "nobody", but whether there are any works at all that were either written by or attributed to the figure in question. If no such works exist, nor have ever been described, nor are likely to, then there is absolutely zero value is setting up and maintaining an Author page. In fact, less than zero because it misleads and disappoints readers following links to such pages, only to find a "we have no works". The person then decides to "help" by adding such works and begins looking for them on IA, Hathi, etc., only to end up duplicating the work already done that determined there were no such works in existence. An empty author page is like a "coming soon" sign for a Starbucks that will never, ever be built, and posting such signs is both cruel and irresponsible. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Suppose, rather than creating individual author pages for these subjects, we were to create a single "Biblical authors" page noting that no one knows who wrote the book, but that these are people to whom individual stories are attributed, and redirect all these names there. BD2412 T 15:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that is a good idea. There are many works in existence, not just Biblical, whose authorship is somewhere between completely unknown and completely certain, and yet the attributed authors are still listed. I think this would be a significant and yet counter-intuitive and ultimately pointless shift in the way Wikisource operates currently. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@BD2412:To whom are you addressing this remark? It does not follow from what I said. I am fine with having an author page for someone to whom an extant work is attributed. I am opposed to having an authorship page for someone with no known works in existence, nor any attributed works in existence, nor any collected published fragments. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• My remark was addressed generally. Rather than having individual pages for errantly or traditionally attributed non-authors, it is better, I think, to condense the attributions where possible. BD2412 T 17:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

How does that improve usability? If you're looking for a work by Enoch and you go to the Author:Enoch page, it does not make it easier to be redirected to a much larger page. If you're looking for a work said to be to be Daniel Defoe (and there is a lot of debate on the subject as to what he actually wrote), there's no value in having a Works by Anonymous 18th Century English Writers page to search when we could actually just put it on the Daniel Defoe page. If people know that Joe Shmoe wrote a work, going to Joe Shmoe's page should generally get you to that work, particularly when the best we could do otherwise is some sort of collect-all page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I agree with this entirely. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Just an update: Author:Adam, Author:Abraham, Author:Elijah, Author:Enoch, Author:Isaac, Author:Jacob, Author:Judah, and Author:Shem all now have (pseudepigraphal) works listed on their author pages, and Author:Gideon, Author:Japhet, Author:Lamech, and Author:Micaiah have been moved to Portal space with soft redirect. So far as I can tell there is no need for deleting anything.  Keep —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Index:Typescript copy of the reminiscences of John Caldwell. PRONI, T3541.5.3.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

moved to WS:Copyright discussions —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

No license on underlying work. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Have you checked PRONI to better identify the issue? — billinghurst sDrewth 01:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

{{PD-old}}

T3541 1782-1799 Parks and Caldwell papers N
Repository : Public Record Office for Northern Ireland
PRONI Reference : T3541
Level : Fond
Access :
Title : Parks and Caldwell papers
Dates : 1782-1799
Description : Bundle of c.30 documents comprising typescript copies of letters, 1798-1799, from John Parks, Dublin and Harmony Hill, near Ballymoney, Co. Antrim, to his father-in-law, John Caldwell Snr, linen merchant, in New York State, USA, and his brother-in-law, John Caldwell; including also an autobiographical account by John Caldwell Jnr outlining the circumstances of the family's emigration; a rent roll, 1782, and valuation of John Caldwell's property at Ballymoney, Co. Antrim, 1798.

Thanks - Withdrawn ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

However, whilst the original Transcript may be PD-Old, There's still the issue of the annotations.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Now being disscussed here - File:Typescript copy of the reminiscences of John Caldwell. PRONI, T3541.5.3.pdf ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to fix the link: Wikisource:Copyright_discussions#File:Typescript copy of the reminiscences of John Caldwell. PRONI, T3541.5.3.pdf —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Author:Zeno brothers

The following discussion is closed:

Turned into disambig page

Separate pages for each brother are created. No works written jointly. All their output is number of their letters (the first set contains letters from Nicolò to Antonio, the second are letters from Antonio to their brother Carlo) and map were published in the year 1558 by one of their descendants, Nicolò Zeno. Thank you, Captain Nemo (talk) 04:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Prefer that it is converted to a disambiguation page. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree with billinghurst.  allixpeeke (talk) 05:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I have converted it. I don't see why it should be a disambig page though, as we're not disambiguating between people named "Zeno Brothers", and we don't generally have disambiguation pages for people who share a last name even if they are brothers. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Kept as it has been turned into disambig page.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 13:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Authorship categories

The following discussion is closed:

Use Portals instead of Categories.

User:Perry Middlemiss has been actively creating authorship categories such as Category:Henry Kendall poetry and Category:Banjo Paterson poetry. These will need to be depopulated and deleted, unless we choose not to reaffirm our practice of not having authorship categories. In many of these cases, the original categories will need to be restored. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I suspect all this sort of discussion will one day be solved with Wikidata, but until then I'm not quite sure what the argument is. These categories in particular seem slightly odd in that they're not just author, but author-type and so have additional redundancy. However, I can't really see what the problem is... (For author categories in general it does seem that it'd be quite an easy addition to {{header}}, in very much the way that date-based categories work.) — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 05:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there value in having the categories would be my question? We chose not to have works added like that as they were already listed on the author page, and then listing them on an author page and then having them in a matching category didn't appear to add value. Our reason for having them on the author page rather than in a category is that categories do not display well as subpages of books, and they cannot be curated.

Throwing in a ping to Perry @Perry Middlemiss: as their opinion would be of value. One for whether our guidance exists or is poor; 2) how they feel that it adds value. My one clear thought on why that have been added is that the overarching works are listed on the author pages, however, the individual poems may not. This is independent of whether we do this from wikidata or not. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Gosh look I think it's a very good point: why have the categories? My only answer is really that I never use categories at all and so don't need them! :) Actually, that was only true until I thought it'd be fun to try and write scripts to pull info about books out of Wikisource, and then I realised that it's tricky to, for example, get a list of all the poetry written by Henry Kendall. So one should create a category, yes! :) But no, then I want to find out all the poetry written by Mr Kendall in 1865... so a new category? Nah. There would be too many! :) Hmm... so categories over on WP represent defining characteristics — do we treat them as such here? For subject/genre we do, perhaps? But date, author, country? Not sure. — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 09:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

That's why we use Author pages. You can find all the works of an author there, arranged by format of work and/or date. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and I use them for exactly those things, and they work well. They're not machine-readable though. (That'll come once we have full Wikidata integration, I hope.) I think I just really like the rich category system at Commons! :-) — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 23:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I must state up front that I am quite a fan of categories, which partially explains my introduction of the Kendall, Lawson and Paterson categories, and I have found that sub-categories (in this case of the parent Australian poetry category) make it easier to find and track entries. I came to this conclusion after adding a number of Kendall poems to Wikisource under the Australian poetry category, and then realising that the main category page was going to become flooded with new entries, and hard to use, very quickly. I am not so wedded to the idea of author sub-categories that I will defend it at all costs, and am happy to abide by whatever decision is made here. I just find the navigation process much easier with them than without them. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Our category structure is intended to match that used by major library catalogs, especially the Library of Congress (USA). Mixed categories like "works of author" don't exist in these systems. Yes, we do have large categories, but that's not a bad thing; over-categorization can be just as much of a problem.

The approach we've taken to aid readers in cases such as the one you're struggling with is the creation of Portals, which allow for freer content with structured arrangement to assist readers. See for example Portal:Ancient Greek drama or Portal:English literature or Portal:Poetry. Each of these portals covers works of a particular sort, but each has taken a format suitable for its specific needs, and they are all a bit different (but with the same LoC header structure for linking). If you'd care to launch a portal for Australian poetry, with links to major works and poets, and with some sort of logical arrangement, that would be wonderful. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I see that there already exists a Portal for Australian poetry so it's best if I concentrate my efforts there. I'll aim to remove the Author categories I've created and find a way to include their intended purpose into the Portal. Thanks for the advice. 22:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Spruce Street.jpg

The following discussion is closed:

transwiki'd

Noticed this was recently tagged for deletion. It was uploaded back in 2009 when I was relatively new here, so I was not yet aware of protocol. I have no issues with deleting. Photograph was taken/edited by me of Author:Florence Earle Coates' Philly home. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Does it meet the criteria for Commons? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: I have updated the template on the image, can you please check it, and correct as necessary. When done, please add {{move to Commons}} template and we can fix from there. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Confirmed that I took it in August of 2009—image DSC_5402 (metadata states 2007, but that is just a camera error reading.) Do I remove the {{delete}} template or leave it? Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I see the file has been moved to Commons. Thank you. Will the WS file then be deleted? Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I usually do it as part of the process, though obviously here I didn't, so thanks for the prod. Done

2 Undelete requests: 1. Lucifer_Myth 2. Sanctity_of_HaShem

The following discussion is closed:

no undeletion; no evidence of being published, work not verified — billinghurst sDrewth 14:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

These documents are relevant essays (analytical works) that are in no way advertising, as is implied by use of the CC0 public domain copyright.

== Undelete Lucifer_Myth ==

Lucifer_Myth is not an advertisement or book description. The content lies withing the scope of Wikisource as an analytical work:

'Analytical works are publications that compile information from other sources and analyze this information. Any non-fiction work which is written about a topic after the main events have occurred generally fits in this category.'

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:What_Wikisource_includes#exception_to_originals

== Undelete Sanctity_of_HaShem ==

This document is not self-published. It was published by a research firm that I work for.

'Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam#External_link_spamming

My external links are completely on topic and are in no way spam. I am not promoting a website or a product. This document utilizes the CC0 public domain copyright. A spammer would not make their research freely reproducible.

'Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial or legal – can trigger a COI. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. But subject-matter experts are welcome to contribute within their areas of expertise, subject to the guidance on financial conflict of interest, while making sure that their external roles and relationships in that field do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#What_is_conflict_of_interest.3F

I am a subject-matter expert contributing within my area of expertise, which is theology.

'Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links

This link contains further research that is accurate and on-topic.

Calebjbaker (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the relevant passage is WS:OR:

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

The exceptions to this are listed: translations, annotations, and multimedia. Your essays appear to be none of these. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

These works were published in a verifiable forum called the Akasha Research Firm (ARF). By posting these analytical works, I was not seeking to get my works published, since they had already been reviewed and published by ARF. Calebjbaker (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Note also that the section of WS:WWI that you have quoted from continues: "Analytical works are publications that compile information from other sources and analyze this information. Any non-fiction work which is written about a topic after the main events have occurred generally fits in this category. These as well as any artistic works must have been published in a medium that includes peer review or editorial controls; this excludes self-publication." —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

These analytical works were published in a medium that included editorial controls; they were not self-published. Calebjbaker (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Decline There is no evidence that either of these "essays" have been published in either a print medium or an online medium. I looked before I deleted. Wikisource is not a place of first publication. We don't have the facilities to do the necessary peer-reviews. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I respect your judgement as an administrator. Here is my useless reply:

These analytical works were published in a print medium locally and were distributed to public and academic libraries at the request of librarians. They were not published online. I understand that 'Wikisource is not a place of first publication'; these 2 documents were physically published prior to their uploading onto Wikisource. I understand that Wikisource does not have 'the facilities to do the necessary peer-reviews'. The documents in question were 'published in a medium that includes editorial controls' at the Akasha Research Firm. -Calebjbaker (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Beeswaxcandle here. Google doesn't know who the Akasha Research Firm is. I don't believe this was intended to be included when WS:WWI, or that we should revise our standards to include it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Calebjbaker: I don't see evidence of the existence of Akasha Research Firm via Google. Are you able to better identify the organisation so we can have some idea of their expertise in the matter at hand. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The Akasha Research Firm does not pass Wikipedia's notability test. These 2 items are being excluded because they are original works, as I now realize. I still think they could also be classified as analytical works, but I don't wish to belabor the point. Thank you for inquiring as to our areas of expertise. We'll keep our research projects, along with our web presence, clandestine for the time being. -Calebjbaker (talk) 12:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I did not ask you whether they are on Wikipedia. Works are not verified, with no evidence for publishing in any means. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The Fortunes and Misfortunes of the Famous Moll Flanders and Roxana: The Fortunate Mistress

The following discussion is closed:

Redirected. Moondyne (talk) 10:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Both currently linked from the author page. Neither is sourced or transcluded and latter appears incomplete. See Moll Flanders and Roxana. Moondyne (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Unless they are substantially different editions worth keeping, I would redirect them to Moll Flanders and Roxana/Moll Flanders and Moll Flanders and Roxana/Roxana. Hesperian 09:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I support that. Moondyne (talk) 09:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Departmental Ditties, Barrack-Room Ballads and other verses

The following discussion is closed:

convert to redirects until works exist — billinghurst sDrewth 03:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The work is a holding page only without any subpages, or links to works, and at this point of time it serves no purpose. It can be recreated when someone has the text from the images available for transclusion. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Redirect to Departmental Ditties and Ballads and Barrack-Room Ballads? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

 Delete with no redirect. While I am not well-versed on the topic of Kipling's version nuances, in response to Beleg Tâl, the two works have significant differences despite containing many of the same pieces. They are distinct, separate works, in my opinion. @Billinghurst:, there is also Barrack-Room Ballads and Departmental Ditties and other verses which are similarly "holding pages." Works should remain listed on Author:page as black 'links' imo, however. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

KEEP to give Londonjackbooks time to sort this out. See Internet Archive links at Talk:Departmental Ditties, Barrack-Room Ballads and other verses, which would be deleted along with the main page. -- Outlier59 (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I am changing them to redirects as I missed that we had some sort of version. Redirects are temporary and allows someone to find the real works. We should be considering which page is the "parent" for a {{versions}} and where versions would be held. Leaving people stranded at a work with negative content is not how we should be handling this matter. No removal of works at author's page, though neither red nor blue links to show to redirects. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)