Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catullus 15
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete; no need to transwiki. Johnleemk | Talk 14:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Catullus 15, Catullus 16, Catullus 17, Catullus 21, Catullus 22, Catullus 25
already on Wikisource.No other link to the articles Melaen 15:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all. Wikipedia is not the place for source documentation. The English Wikipedia is not the place for articles written in a foreign language. —gorgan_almighty 15:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Stong keep and transwiki. The information about the texts could probably be combined into one article in WP. Then, the quoted texts needs to be moved to wikisource, since their notability is not in question. I am pretty sure this is the Latin wikisource, but this may be another language.--Esprit15d 18:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- I took off the tranlation tags, since translation of works is not appropriate for WP.--Esprit15d 18:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Note the links to the text already contained on Wikisource by the WS Template. Please do not transwiki what already exists or put latin text on the english wikisource. If there are English translations you would like to move please be sure they are not copyright violations. Published before 1923 is a good rule of thumb, if in doubt don't transwiki--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 23:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Birgitte, was that note directed at me? Anyway, I'm in total agreement.--Esprit15d 14:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- No I'm sorry if it came across that way I am just trying insert similar comments wherever I find these sorts of disscusions. We have a large backlog of Transwiki materials at Wikisource and a lot of them are unverifiable copyright (especially translations) or non-english [1]. And it is hard to contact the WP editors doing the transwikis as they don't sign up for accounts. So I am just trying inform editors to Transwiki responsibly as we don't want copyright material sititng in the backlog for too long.
- Birgitte, was that note directed at me? Anyway, I'm in total agreement.--Esprit15d 14:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Note the links to the text already contained on Wikisource by the WS Template. Please do not transwiki what already exists or put latin text on the english wikisource. If there are English translations you would like to move please be sure they are not copyright violations. Published before 1923 is a good rule of thumb, if in doubt don't transwiki--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 23:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- I took off the tranlation tags, since translation of works is not appropriate for WP.--Esprit15d 18:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Transwiki and delete. Stifle 16:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Transwiki to Wikisource. --Revolución (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
