Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr William Guild Mortification


 * 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   speedy delete. G7 slakr  \ talk / 09:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Dr William Guild Mortification

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is just the primary document, no history, no discussion, just a transcript of the document.

It should be deleted here and moved to wikiquote. ColonelHenry (talk) 06:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I am happy to have it moved to wikiquote. I am not familiar with this resource. The purpose of the entry - which I "translated" from a document dated 1825, which itself is a copy from the original MS in Latin from 1633, is to allow various other articles to reference important wording for the residents of the hospital in 1633. If wikiquote is the right place and it can be referenced, e.g. seeDr Guild Mortification etc.. for a wikipedia article  -  then OK.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I think Wikisource would be the best place for this, not Wikiquote. See Wikisource for how to copy to Wikisource, and how to reference it. --Vclaw (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

OK let's try another "location" It is rather confusing. All I want to do is 1 provide a series of wiki articles for others to read 2 provide detailed sources/ references so that others can evaluate the wiki articles.

I don't find time to enter into interesting discussions about process. My apologies. Just indicate where the material that I teanscribed might be located AND suggest how readers might easily link from the wiki article to the "evidence" Any help welcome Ray 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 06:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)



6/2/14 There is a general principle involved here. As I understand Wikipedia, the entries should contain sufficient information for readers to cross-reference and corroborate views/ facts/ etc. Together with the "open" system of moderation and editing this gives a reasonably good quality check on the content of entries. In the case of historical events/ places/ movements there are many original documents dating from medieval times. In one entry I have made Bishop Dunbar's Hospital I have the original Ms from James V (1531) giving authority to the establishment of the Hospital AND most importantly laying down the nature of the institution IN THE WORDING and SENTIMENTS of the day. The Dr Guild Mortification (1633) is a similar situation - except that so far I have been unable to trace the original MS. The Wikiquote entry is my “translation” of an document from 1825 which itself is probably a translation ( from the 17th C Scots). There are many other important contemporary or near contemporary documents that would be useful for readers of general entries to read in full. I think this is the heart of the issue. How should Wikipedia present documents (out of copyright etc etc) to allow readers corroborate / check claims made in entries? Ray Oaks
 * Documents can be uploaded on WikiSource. Wikipedia is not for original documents, or for original research using old documents; a Wikipedia article should be a summary of what people write about original documents. Note that documents on WikiSource aren't normally considered reliable sources for Wikipedia articles, but they can be referenced or linked to from Wikipedia. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | confer _ 05:08, 18 February 2014 (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.