Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord's Prayer in different auxiliary languages


 * 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, since transwiki isn't an option, per Uncle G. --bainer (talk) 01:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Lord's Prayer in different auxiliary languages
Non-encyclopedic, might be a copyright violation Alex Bakharev 06:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete "Do not include copies of primary sources", I seem to recall... Guy (Help!) 08:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikisource if this article is not a copyright violation. -- Kyok o  08:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki, checking for (likely nonextant) copyrights on the older ones. The 1951 one might be a problem. --Dhartung | Talk 09:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki per above, but I can't imagine any way the Lord's Prayer could be considered copyrighted. 23skidoo 13:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Any translation can be copyrighted. Better safe than sorry.--Dhartung | Talk 18:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki per above. FWIW, the Lord's Prayer is a widely used sample text featured in Mithridates style references, and I strongly doubt that the Lord's Prayer translation into Interlingua is copyrighted, especially since Interlingua itself is a revision of earlier conlangs based on Latin. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What does the family tree of the language have to do with copyright? --Dhartung | Talk 18:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that Interlingua is a revision of Latino Sine Flexione, from 1903. The translation given seems strongly influenced by the Vulgate's version of the Lord's Prayer.  Not sure that there's enough originality here to worry about, even if copyright were claimed in the text. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Old Wikisource (not English Wikisource!) and delete here. —Angr 07:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Transwiki suggestion removed per Uncle G's comments below —Angr 00:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As editors could have discovered by following the link in Lord's Prayer, Wikisource already has this prayer in Esperanto and Ido (Patro Nia) and in Interlingua (Nostre Patre). It does not need extra copies.  All of the above opinions to transwiki are therefore invalid. The transwikification system is not a means for Wikipedia editors to avoid dealing properly with Wikipedia's own problems.  Uncle G 09:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And before anyone asks "What about Bolak?", I point out that there are (that a few minutes' research turns up) at least three different translations of the Lord's Prayer into Bolak. Apparently, this translation is not the one that can be found in La Langue Bleue Bolak, but is someone else's copyrighted translation.  Wikisource won't take copyright violations any more than Wikipedia will. And, indeed, what about Bolak?. Uncle G 09:49, 9 February 2007 (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.