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 was delete. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sixty-seven Articles[edit]

Sixty-seven Articles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced translation of his "Auslegung und Begründung der Thesen oder Artikel, " I don't think the current standards at Wikitext would permit it there, unless someone can find the source. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – As copied from a website that lacks an explicit copyright release statement.

The website is the Christian History website [1] cited as the source in the article. It says this:

The Sixty—Seven Articles of Ulrich Zwingli;” from the Selected Works of Huldrich Zwingli (1484—1531), the Reformer of German Switzerland; translated for the First Time from the Originals, ed. Samuel Macauley Jackson (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1901). Introduced and Edited by Dan Graves.

There are two editions of the translation by Samuel Macauley Jackson – the original 1901 edition and a 1972 edition, both from the University of Pennsylvania. In both the copyright to the text is 1901, so that part is public domain (copyright expired). But Dan Graves is an editor at the Christian History website, and I couldn't find a copyright release, so the status of his editing of the text is unclear.

Meanwhile, Wikisource apparently would prefer to have a scan of the 1901 text along with the data so that they can verify it. In some cases they will accept data from a source like Project Gutenberg. But it has to be public domain. Since the status of the contribution by Graves is unclear, it looks to me like it doesn't qualify. – Margin1522 (talk) 11:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Send to WP:CP: Here is a source of the original text scanned by the Online Library of Liberty, indicating that the original text is in Public Domain: [2]. As for the article, WP:SCV has this currently due to the copyvio from here. Copyvio report. Also, here is the difference between the original text and the edited version [3], it's mostly edits of "ye olde speak" to more modern text. I believe this should be sent to WP:CP. Tek022 | Comments? 19:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Page images of the 1901 edition (in the public domain) are at the Online Library of Liberty at http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1682 as a "Facsimile PDF" under the heading Edition Used. The Sixty-seven Articles are set out on pages 111-117 of the Facsimile PDF and I have checked the text of the Wikipedia article and edited it to ensure that it is in accordance with the facsimile pages. Therefore there is no issue with copyright regarding this article. Also see the references cited by me in the article. The text of the entire book is available in several formats, from the same place that I accessed the PDF. I am not into submitting stuff to Wikisource but it seems to me that the page images and the OCRd text would be good candidates for Wikisource. P.S. I notice that the page images are also at Internet Archive at https://archive.org/details/selectedworksofh00zwin. Collywolly (talk)
• Delete - or rather, redirect. I can't see any copyright problem here, the text was published in the United States before 1923, so is in the public domain (I haven't checked that it is word-for-word the same, taking User:Collywolly's word for that). Or am I missing something?

Nor can I see any conceivable reason to host this on Wikipedia. Apart from the original text, there's one sentence there. Better redirect to Huldrych Zwingli, expand it there, split it off if it becomes disproportionately large in relation to the rest of the article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Justlettersandnumbers' sound and accurate analysis above. No actual reasons to host the text here, and basically the article has no content outside the text itself. Cavarrone 17:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The nomination for deletion is made on the basis that there is little to the article other than a list of the Sixty-seven Articles. On the Huldrych Zwingli page there is referenc to his Sixty-seven Articles and that reference links to this page. These articles seem to be very relevant in the context of the Reformation and precepts which were being formulated and it would be a shame to see the article deleted, since some effort has gone into getting it to this point. Perhaps they could be set out in Zwingli's article or handled in another way, though I do not know how that might be. My interest in this came about when I noticed that the article was tagged as requiring more links. --Collywolly (talk) 00:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – True, it's an important text. But we don't have to host the data on Wikipedia. For scholarly purposes the original 1901 translation is the best, so it seems like the Zwingli article could just link to one of the versions that you found above, or send it to Wikisource, as you suggested earlier. – Margin1522 (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - That all sounds good to me. I don't know who is meant to do this sort of thing, so did it myself. I have unlinked the Sixty-seven articles from Huldrych Zwingli and added a reference at that point to the book in which the sixty-seven articles can be found at the Internet Archive. I hope that I have handled this correctly. Delete away! --Collywolly (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.