Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2008-10

=Deleted=

Deletion of categories

 * Category:Songs by Noble Sissle Accidental creation when I was trying to make an author page. Durova (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. You can use sdelete to speedy delete. :-) John Vandenberg (chat) 11:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki:Onward, Christian Soldiers
Found this complaint while patrolling. Not sure what better process to follow beyond bring it here for attention. :-) -- billinghurst (talk) 02:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Deleted; we have Onward, Christian Soldiers. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 06:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

=Kept=

Author:George Thomas Coker
The series of articles listed in this author page are beyond the scope of Wikisource. (There is no copyright dispute.) There is no indication that this person was an author himself, and all of the articles are nothing more than documents in relation to various military awards that he has received. I don't know if these documents have ever been published elsewhere, or whether this represents original publication. I don't think that this approach to military commendations is somewhere that we should be going. Eclecticology (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not! These are official records; if these are not acceptable we start going down a very slippery slope towards notability of "records". Many official documents are filed and never published.  Also, we long ago discarded the notion that an Author page is only permissible for people who have authored works.  That aside, I am sure that in the course of his duties, Coker has written official or personal correspondence worthy of Wikisource. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is less about the author page than about the long series of articles themselves. They are in the same league as the maudlin material that went into the 9/11 wiki.  The slippery slope is about becoming a collection of personal documents.  Eclecticology (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Personal papers of public figures can be included, especially if they are related to official public duties. I see awards for military work as following in this category. FloNight (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Less vehemently not, I've always maintained that things like lawsuits or similarly "negative" documents should be vetted and possibly removed if related to living persons, regardless of copyright status. But this is a clear case where there's nothing "negative" about the person, we are merely hosting the works for interested individuals. Definitely keep. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Isaac Brock 04:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep These are official records and are useful to people that want detailed information about the specific wording of awards citation. I see no reason to consider them outside the inclusion criteria since they are available as public records about military awards. FloNight (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Outside our "norm", but I still think it's plenty fine. EVula // talk // 18:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, fits under What Wikisource includes and was instrumental to adding verified historical material to George T. Coker. Dreadstar (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongest Keep These are public domain, so we can use, admin Eclecticology should know that. They not just awards, have his history too.JoJo (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Kept. Giggy (talk) 05:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

=Other= {{closed|1=Following Jayvb's suggestion &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  {{sup| Talk }} 16:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Walter Richard Brookins
This page contains two newspaper articles, both verifiable. The deletion discussion is at Proposed_deletions/Archives/2006/09.

I propose it is undeleted, moved to Author:Walter Richard Brookins, and the redirect then deleted. The two articles can then be split onto separate pages. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC) }}

{{closed|1=Moved to "Cleanup". The page was more of a documentation for the cleaning up of pages, which is probably a good thing to maintain for rudimentary documentation of the process of fixing a page. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  {{sup| Talk }} 14:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Requests for cleanup

 * Irony aside, Requests for cleanup is just a useless piece of crap. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Abu Hamid al-Ghazālī 07:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, move to Cleanup and improve. We need a page to point newcomers to when they are looking to help rather than add. John Vandenberg 22:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Renaming Community Portal to Cleanup would make more sense. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Abu Hamid al-Ghazālī 22:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously we need some sort of clean-up page.--Poetlister 16:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that's what Community Portal is right now, hence my suggestion to rename it to cleanup, and scrap the shitty one. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Arthur Schopenhauer 21:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have merged the two pages into Community Portal, unless there are complaints, I will rename it WS:Cleanup as it is more the focus of the page. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Augustus John Cuthbert Hare 04:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Then, wouldn't this be the only project without a community portal? -Steve Sanbeg 18:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Pages like this are useless unless they are used. I just looked at Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 which has the cleanup tag.  The tag was put there in May 2005, presumably because of serious errors in the way that the article was formatted.  These were apparently fixed in September 2005, but the cleanup tag remains.  There is no indication of what else was sought to be cleaned.
 * I'm inclined to delete the page, and work in a link to the category on the Community Portal. Changing the name of the Community Portal to "Cleanup" only shifts the problem to a newly titled page without advancing the issue.  The Community Portal should be about more than just cleanups. Pages whose focus is on things for other people to do tend not to be very productive, even when the task is urgent. Eclecticology 16:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 was in the cleanup category, but didnt have a cleanup tag. I've    started the cleanup, but much more is needed, so I had added a tag to the top so incoming readers can quickly see that we believe improvement is necessary.  Sadly, the templates dont really help new users work out what to do, but many people familiar with editing Wikipedia quickly figure out what to do.  I think we need finer granularity in tags; i.e. a "cleanup-law" tag would be able to point people to a good work of a similar type, so that they can learn by example.
 * Most of the people who have been here longer have too many things on our todo list, so adding a tag is a helpful low-cost way to nudge the new content in the right direction. Increasingly we are seeing new contributors come and tackle these low hanging fruit.  e.g. many new users work on the pages to be split, and Community Portal is the most prominent page that informs new users about this necessary task.  We dont see a lot of new users tackling old cleanup tasks, but better documentation will help with that.  To me, cleanup is more intended to tell the initial contributor that their contribution is below par.  Often that has the desired effect, but perhaps they are leaving the tag in place because they dont know if they have done enough to warrant the tag being removed.  The infrastructure to do administrative/maintenance work is only useless to people who dont do that type of work. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The question at the beginning was really about whether the tag was effective. In the specific case of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 there really were some fixes made after the template first went on.  The page as it is really only one single section from a much larger omnibus appropriations bill, and probably needs a lot more done to link it to as yet undeveloped parts of our copy of the United States Code/Title 18.  Adjusting the indents into something meaningful is easy; co-ordinating and maintaining this piece of legislation with the USC is quite another matter. Eclecticology 21:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

}}