Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/History of Edmeston, New York

History of Edmeston, New York
Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks states that Wikibooks is not for source texts. This book was imported from Wikisource in December 2007 with no change to its content. It now sits as a duplicate of History of Edmeston, New York and remains out of scope as a result. -- Adrignola talk contribs 16:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No reason to have a duplicate from Wikisource --Duplode (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * On further inspection, there are two pages which only exist in the Wikibooks version: 1940-1949 and 1960-1969. When trying edit the corresponding red links on Wikisource, in order not to destroy their contents needlessly, I was greeted with the following messages:

Warning: You are recreating a page that was previously deleted. ''You should consider whether it is appropriate to continue editing this page. The deletion and move log for this page are provided here for convenience:''
 * 07:03, 21 January 2008 John Vandenberg (Talk | contribs) deleted "History of Edmeston, New York/1940s" ‎ (moved to wikibooks; contains no content suitable for wikisource)


 * and

Warning: You are recreating a page that was previously deleted. ''You should consider whether it is appropriate to continue editing this page. The deletion and move log for this page are provided here for convenience:''
 * 04:15, 21 January 2008 John Vandenberg (Talk | contribs) deleted "History of Edmeston, New York/1960s" ‎ (no sources on this page)


 * I believe the creators of the book were put into a catch-22, so I suspend my judgement for the moment. --Duplode (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it is necessary to know why it was not suitable at wikisource. Perhaps we could ask a source admin. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 11:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That was so stupid of me, it was moved here. My opinion would be that too large a portion of the book is copied from Wikisource, so I say delete. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 11:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the problem with a copy from Wikisource, if author attributions are preserved ? What makes it different from any stub if the content is valid ? --Panic (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose it is mostly a question of project scope, especially because it would be rather counterproductive to have exactly the same material in two different projects. But if Wikisource can't accept those two pages because they, strictly speaking, aren't source texts I agree that the deletion is not a good solution. --Duplode (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that if a work conforms to WIW even if it is duplicated (with the intention of extending it) from Wikisource, shouldn't be deleted, we should even promote exploration of Wikisource for usable material at every chance. --Panic (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, if this is kept then all public domain textbooks will end up here. ;) Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 10:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Not an exact copy of the original material, valid project regarding WIW definition. I would like a reference to the original source material at Wikisource to be added (and vice versa). --Panic (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)