Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2025
 | Please do not post any new comments on this page.
This is a discussion archive first created in , although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index. |
Extracts of For the Sexes: The Gates of Paradise
The following discussion is closed:
Turned into redirects as extracts
That page contains a two fragments of [1] (p. 2 & 21), and is where it should be added in full.
Three other pages contain three fragments of that same work, as rootpages, and should be deleted as extracts:
- The Gates of Paradise (p. 2)
- Of the Gates (p. 19-20)
- To The Accuser who is The God of This World (p. 21)
- This section was archived on a request by: — Alien 3
3 3 06:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Kept
Is an extract of [2] (p. 332), so delete per WS:WWI#Extracts. — Alien 3
3 3 13:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Surely an individual poem has its own existence and does not become am "extract" merely by having been included in a collection of poems ? -- Beardo (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, a poem is, broadly, a work, and can have a version within other works, such as periodicals or collections. Typically what we'll do is delete it after a scan-backed version has been provided. That particular collection looks like a rough project; I'd wait. SnowyCinema (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- In that case I
Keep unless/until we find a collected edition of Gay's poems which we use. -- Beardo (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC) - Keep until replaced by a scan backed version.
- In that case I
- FPTI (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: — Alien 3
3 3 13:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Kept
Is an extract of [3] (p. 307), so delete per WS:WWI#Extracts. — Alien 3
3 3 14:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- By the way - there is no delete tag on the actual page. -- Beardo (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Weak Keep, as speeches are themselves a type of work. I don't like that it's not scan-backed, but I'm reluctant to delete it if we have nothing to replace it with. SnowyCinema (talk) 03:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- There is another version of that speech (without that title) at https://archive.org/details/speechhonhenry00davis/page/n5/mode/2up -- Beardo (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep We typically consider speeches / bills / laws etc. as independent works even though they are typically published in large collections (e.g. the Federal Register, Hansard, Congressional Record, etc.). For example, we just discussed Lavrov's speech at the UN General Assembly without requiring proofreading the whole collected set of the whole General Assembly session for the year. MarkLSteadman (talk) 04:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: — Alien 3
3 3 13:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Deleted
Only contains chapter one, and does not give a source. This page and user who created have had no activity for a year and a half. — Alien 3
3 3 14:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Internet Archive has a decent quality scan if someone wants to take this up properly: https://archive.org/details/lastofplainsmen0000zane_b4h9 Omphalographer (talk) 09:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: — Alien 3
3 3 13:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Undelete File:Story of Ichalkaranji.pdf
The following discussion is closed:
Undeleted
According to the deletion discussion, it entered the public domain this year. Norbillian (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Norbillian:
Done since no matter what the case was in 2018, it's in the public domain now. And feel free to also assess if it can go to Commons now, and fill in more info. SnowyCinema (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Could you also delete the index file? Norbillian (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Done SnowyCinema (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I noticed the Index also had pages, will undelete them. — Alien 3
3 3 07:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)- Done — Alien 3
3 3 07:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I noticed the Index also had pages, will undelete them. — Alien 3
- For the US, yes,ut since this was published in India, and the author died in 1987, the file needs a "Do not copy to Commons" template with the author's date of death noted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- It also needs a {{book}} template present and filled out. Title, date, author, and source being of particular importance. Xover (talk) 08:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Done — Alien 3
3 3 08:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- It also needs a {{book}} template present and filled out. Title, date, author, and source being of particular importance. Xover (talk) 08:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Could you also delete the index file? Norbillian (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: — Alien 3
3 3 13:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Converted to dab page
They are not editions of the same work, they are different works. The list is redundant to the list of works in Author:John Robert Gregg. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Added a forgotten {{delete}}. — Alien 3
3 3 13:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)- I am not sure I follow. The 1916 linked title is "Gregg Shorthand: A Light-line Phonography for the Million: New and Revised edition" with copyrights of 1893, 1916, 1901. The 1902 linked title is "Gregg Shorthand: A Light Line Phonography for the Million: Revised edition", copyright 1901, 1902, 1893. The 1898 link is entitled: "Gregg's Shorthand: A Light-line Phonography for the Million copyright 1898, 1892. The 1893 is entitled "Gregg's Shorthand: A Light-Line Phonography for the Million", copyright 1893. Why are these not different editions of the same work? Of course new and revised editions have updates, new material etc., I get that the first edition US edition is 35 pages with five 4 page lessons that have been expanded to 154 pages with twenty 8-10 page lessons in the "Fifth edition". The author describes them as editions rather than new works as well. MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- What led me to the conclusion that they are separate works was the very different content of the books, compare e.g. the First Lesson of the 1888, of the 1893 and of the 1898 book. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- The actual content covered isn't that different if you read it, certainly they are closer in content than say versions of the Encyclopedia Britannica. But even so, when is the solution to we have works by the same author with similar titles (e.g. completely different poems with the same title) deletion as redundant to the listing on the Author page rather than conversion to a disambiguation page? I really don't see the problem with listing "Light-line Phonography" on a disambiguation page for "A Light-line Phonography for the Million" or vice versa. MarkLSteadman (talk) 09:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK, I agree with conversion to a disambiguation page. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- The actual content covered isn't that different if you read it, certainly they are closer in content than say versions of the Encyclopedia Britannica. But even so, when is the solution to we have works by the same author with similar titles (e.g. completely different poems with the same title) deletion as redundant to the listing on the Author page rather than conversion to a disambiguation page? I really don't see the problem with listing "Light-line Phonography" on a disambiguation page for "A Light-line Phonography for the Million" or vice versa. MarkLSteadman (talk) 09:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- What led me to the conclusion that they are separate works was the very different content of the books, compare e.g. the First Lesson of the 1888, of the 1893 and of the 1898 book. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am not sure I follow. The 1916 linked title is "Gregg Shorthand: A Light-line Phonography for the Million: New and Revised edition" with copyrights of 1893, 1916, 1901. The 1902 linked title is "Gregg Shorthand: A Light Line Phonography for the Million: Revised edition", copyright 1901, 1902, 1893. The 1898 link is entitled: "Gregg's Shorthand: A Light-line Phonography for the Million copyright 1898, 1892. The 1893 is entitled "Gregg's Shorthand: A Light-Line Phonography for the Million", copyright 1893. Why are these not different editions of the same work? Of course new and revised editions have updates, new material etc., I get that the first edition US edition is 35 pages with five 4 page lessons that have been expanded to 154 pages with twenty 8-10 page lessons in the "Fifth edition". The author describes them as editions rather than new works as well. MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: — Alien 3
3 3 19:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Deleted as an extract
This is just an extract from Historical Papers and Addresses of the Lancaster County ..., Volumes 17-18 - see the google books link on the talk page. It doesn't seem to be a full item, just a subsection. -- Beardo (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete Even more so, it's an extract of a speech inside a section. MarkLSteadman (talk) 09:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: — Alien 3
3 3 19:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Deleted as not in english
Work is not in English - so does not belong. (Also no source given). -- Beardo (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: — Alien 3
3 3 14:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (1665-1886) and subcategories (not subpages)
The following discussion is closed:
Speedy-deleted under WS:CSD#G8
These are all work-based categories, I think. If they are, then they are be speediable under WS:CSD#G8, but I'm not sure whether this counts as work-based. (Are different volumes of a periodical different works? I don't think so, but maybe others disagree.) — Alien 3
3 3 13:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, they are work-based categories and should all be reachable from the parent page for the periodical. Once that's been checked, then speedy G8. If other organisation is needed, then a Portal and/or a WikiProject should be created. [As a side note, the categories were set up before we'd definitively settled not to have such categories.] Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Done —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 08:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 08:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)