Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anglo-Saxon Ingram Translation


 * 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 transwiki. Johnleemk | Talk 15:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon Ingram Translation

 * Delete Move - A 19th century translation of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle doesnt make an article. We dont have separate Wikipedia articles for each modern translation of an old text. Transwiki the bottom portion to Wikisource. Stbalbach 05:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Move to Wikisource. But why delete the top portion? It seems to do no more than explain what this text is, but might be useful. Crypticfirefly 06:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There are many (better) translations of the ASC. This just happens to be in the public domain because its pre-1920s. It's non-notable otherwise. --Stbalbach 06:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but if moved to Wikisource, the explanation of which translation this is would be useful for that very reason. That's what I thought you meant by the "top portion." Crypticfirefly 06:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok just some confusion on what I was trying to say, we're saying the same thing. --Stbalbach 15:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Move to wikisource. We already have Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Banana04131 04:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This text cannot be put on wikisource as the Ingram translation because it it clearly states it is a combination of two translations. Since they are both PD it is alright as long the person who combined them released their work under GDFL.  I am assuming that person is a WP editor but that needs to be verified before moving to Wikisource.-- Birgitte§β  ʈ  Talk  18:11, 1 February 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.