Editing Wikisource:Proposed deletions (section)

== [[Contracts Awarded by the CPA]] ==

Out of scope per [[WS:WWI]] as it's a mere listing of data devoid of any published context. [[User:Xover|Xover]] ([[User talk:Xover|talk]]) 12:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
: {{vk}} if scan-backed to [https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/cpa-iraq/business/Awarded_Contracts.pdf this PDF document]. Since the PDF document is from 2004, a time when the WWW existed but wasn't nearly as universal to society as today, I find the thought that this wasn't printed and distributed absurdly unlikely. And the copyright license would be PD-text, since none of the text is complex enough for copyright, being a list of general facts. Also, this document is {{w|Coalition Provisional Authority|historically significant}}, since it involves the relationships between two federal governments during a quite turbulent war in that region. [[User:SnowyCinema|SnowyCinema]] ([[User talk:SnowyCinema|talk]]) 14:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
: (And it should be renamed to "CPA-CA Register of Awards" to accurately reflect the document.) [[User:SnowyCinema|SnowyCinema]] ([[User talk:SnowyCinema|talk]]) 14:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
::It's still just a list of data devoid of any context that might justify its inclusion (like if it were, e.g., the appendix to a report on something or other). [[User:Xover|Xover]] ([[User talk:Xover|talk]]) 19:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
::: Maybe I should write a user essay on this, since this is something I've had to justify in other discussions, so I can just link to that in the future.
::: I don't take the policy to mean we don't want compilations of data ''on principle'', or else we'd be deleting works like the US copyright catalogs (which despite containing introductions, etc., the ''body'' is fundamentally just a list of data). The policy says the justification on the very page. What we're trying to avoid is, rather, "user-compiled and unverified" data, like ''Wikisource editors'' (not external publications) listing resources for a certain project. And if you personally disagree, that's fine, but that's how I read the sentiment of the policy. I think that whether something was published, or at least printed or collected by a reputable-enough source, should be considered fair game. I'm more interested in weeding out research that was compiled on the fly by individual newbie editors, than ''federal government official compilations''.
::: But to be fair, even in my line of logic, this is sort of an iffy case, since the version of the document I gave gives absolutely no context besides "CPA-CA REGISTER OF AWARDS (1 JAN 04- 10 APRIL 04)" so it is difficult to verify the actual validity of the document's publication in 2004, but I would lean to keep this just because I think the likelihood is in the favor of the document being valid, and the data is on a notable subject. And if evidence comes to light that proves its validity beyond a shadow of a doubt, then certainly. [[User:SnowyCinema|SnowyCinema]] ([[User talk:SnowyCinema|talk]]) 00:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
::: Evidence of validity: The search metadata gives a date of April 11, 2004, and [https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/cpa-iraq/business/ the parent URL] is clearly an early 2000s web page just by the looks of it. My keep vote is sustained. [[User:SnowyCinema|SnowyCinema]] ([[User talk:SnowyCinema|talk]]) 00:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)