Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion
This page is for the polite establishment of consensus through civil discussion about pages which may need deletion or undeletion for non-obvious reasons. Pages where the reasons are obvious are normally speedily deleted/undeleted instead. A good attitude behind proposing pages here is "I can see a reason for (un)deleting this page, but I'm not sure - what do others think?". When responding a good attitude to have is to think of novel ways to make pages more useful to Wikiversity participants. Finding ways to improve pages is the preferred outcome of any discussion here. |
Decision process
Please put "keep", "delete", or "neutral" at the beginning of your response. Give a reason. Try to keep your reasons brief, 1 sentence is usually enough. Keep your reasons close to the facts of the case rather than stating a political position. Don't forget to tag the actual page with {{dr}}. To prevent shorter responses from getting lost and to keep this page sufficiently organized, consider using a subpage of Request for Deletion for overly long responses, and linking to it with a short response here. If you have strong opinions or you are not prepared to change your position in the light of consensus, please do not edit on this page at all. Remember that consensus is not majority rule and certainly not rule-by-the-loudest-and-most-uncivil. The idea of consensus is to kindly and gently bring everyone on board (and not necessarily onto your "own" board). Pages are listed here for a period of at least five days, but often are kept much longer. It is good to wait for clear consensus to emerge. |
Useful resources
|
How to list a page here
|
Undeletion requests
If an article has been deleted, and you think it shouldn't have been, please list it here. Please try to give as close to the title as possible, and list your reasons for why it should be restored.
- List articles here...
Deletion requests
Media files with no copyright information
There is no licensing information for these files.
- Image:French Vocabulary - Introductions.ogg
- Image:French Grammar - The French Alphabet.ogg
- Image:French Vocabulary - How are you?.ogg
- Image:French Vocabulary - Greetings.ogg
- Image:12barBlues001.ogg 1.ogg
- Image:Hanka Dublin.jpg
--JWSchmidt 17:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- JW has already placed request for licensing information on the originator's discussion page with a warning that the files will be deleted if it is not forthcoming. Mirwin 22:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Some of these are candidates for Template:GFDL-presumed. --JWSchmidt 22:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Unless at the time of upload, there was some sort of message contrary to "Images without proper information about their source and their license will be deleted." then delete the image. The ogg's I'm not so certain about. Emesee 19:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Please see Category:Contested_candidates_for_deletion. The creator of the page has contested the speedy delete. --mikeu talk 01:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- You may also want to follow or participate in discussion at Talk:100¢. Cormaggio talk 10:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Note This page has since been moved to Creative writing/Miley Cyrus, and the current page is a redirect. This took place on 23 August 2008. Only Jade Knight's comments have come after the redirect. If there are no complaints, I will close this and then others can refile under its new name. Since it moved, the current redirect exists. If there are no complaints or requests not to, I will remove it within 24 hours unless someone else steps in before I do. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any educational content in this. Is there any way to make a valuable entry here? (I don't think so.)--Gbaor 08:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. No educational content or prospect of. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Based on the demographics of the fan base, I assume this may have been written by someone still refining their writing skills. So if this is a good faith edit of someone practicing their writing skills, having maybe learned from that practice, I'm not certain this should be deleted. Emesee 12:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- No doubt about good faith in this case. It is about educational content... but your note was interesting... "someone practicing their writing skills..." Maybe we can make a Topic:Writing skills practice, and label this entry (and similar ones) with a corresponding template? i.e. Just for writing skill practice (short stories, etc.)?--Gbaor 12:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- I also would like that these are categorized. Deletion can be done anytime. Hopefully with this we can win participants. ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 18:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- No doubt about good faith in this case. It is about educational content... but your note was interesting... "someone practicing their writing skills..." Maybe we can make a Topic:Writing skills practice, and label this entry (and similar ones) with a corresponding template? i.e. Just for writing skill practice (short stories, etc.)?--Gbaor 12:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Rather than delete non-vandalism pages, Wikiversity should always find ways to harness the interests of editors. --JWSchmidt 18:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- OK then let's find a way to keep this (and also similar ones). I don't see however, how is the "Media project" part related to the article's topic... Opinions regarding the "Writing practice" idea? --Gbaor 10:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- The page could maybe be moved to Writing practice/Miley Cyrus. That is just one option though. Emesee 21:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Has absolutely no relation to Wikiversity's mission. --McCormack 04:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per McCormack. People don't need to use Wikiversity as an area for "writing practice". Adambro 23:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- People do not need to use Wikiversity for anything, however, some educators encourage kids to write about any topic that interests them. Oh, but they might learn how to participate at a wiki....we can't have that! --JWSchmidt 00:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Wikiversity:Sandbox already exists. Adambro 07:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- "People don't need to use Wikiversity as an area for "writing practice"": why not ? If Wikiversity can help them to increase their learning/skills (e.g. in writing skills), then that is good. Who knows we might create (or lose) a great author in the future. ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 17:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Word processors were invented long before Wikiversity I don't see why the project should be trying to serve the same purpose. Adambro 13:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Adambro: you do not recognize any difference between editing a wiki and using a word processor? --JWSchmidt 13:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- I can certainly recognise the difference between a Wiki and a word processor and the latter seems much more appropriate for "writing practice". Now if this was intended, or you suggest it is, practice in editing a Wiki then I'd again highlight the well established concept of Wikiversity:Sandbox. Adambro 14:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Adambro: you do not recognize any difference between editing a wiki and using a word processor? --JWSchmidt 13:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Word processors were invented long before Wikiversity I don't see why the project should be trying to serve the same purpose. Adambro 13:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- "People don't need to use Wikiversity as an area for "writing practice"": why not ? If Wikiversity can help them to increase their learning/skills (e.g. in writing skills), then that is good. Who knows we might create (or lose) a great author in the future. ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 17:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Wikiversity:Sandbox already exists. Adambro 07:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- People do not need to use Wikiversity for anything, however, some educators encourage kids to write about any topic that interests them. Oh, but they might learn how to participate at a wiki....we can't have that! --JWSchmidt 00:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Delete Seems to me that the article is revealing some personal information, which goes against the privacy policy including the Foundations Policy, Wikiversity isn't Wikipedia and this sort of article shouldn't be placed on the site. Dark Mage 17:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- This looks like a page made by a kid who is a fan of a public figure. Is there anything on this page that is not at Miley Cyrus? It might be "personal information" but it is the kind of information that shared with the fans. I think Wikiversity has to expect a future that will bring many young editors here who need to learn about how to participate in Wikimedia projects. Do we have to use page deletion as out teaching tool? Let's be welcoming and think outside of the Wikipedia-box. --JWSchmidt 13:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Wikiversity is a place for collaborative learning, and that includes writing, even fictional writing. One problem for this article is we don't know what to make of it; we don't know if it is factual or fictional. That was probably why some of us cannot find educational value of the page. It would have help if the fictional materials and writing exercises were labelled and categorised appropriately. And, in the end, even if the page is deleted, it has served it purpose, and we should welcome this use of wikiversity as a place to practise writing. Hillgentleman|Talk 00:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- I would suggest keep, label and categorise. It is a good example of using wikiversity to learn. Hillgentleman|Talk 00:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- The page is clearly only useful as a potential product of learning - ie how to gather information, edit a wiki, write an article, etc. And even then, the learning process is not clear. But it's certainly not clear what purpose it serves to keep such pages here in order to facilitate further learning - except for perhaps evaluating the quality of the work. I think we need to find a way of promoting the potential for learning from our content - and if it isn't clear, then we shouldn't be so nervous of deleting the page in question. I could really only keep this page if it was clearly labeled at the top as an individual's creative writing exercise - and probably renamed as, say, Creative writing/Miley Cyrus in order to reflect that. Cormaggio talk 14:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Since more people will be comfortable with a label attached, let's do this: at Portal:Writing Center exists the learning resource: Creative Writing. There also exists the Category:Creative writing. Above are also mentioned other "labels" as: "Writing skills practice" or "Writing practice". For the moment I have moved the "Miley Cyrus" learning resource as subpage of "Creative writing". Will move/rearrange the sections a little. Feel free to move further or take other labels. I hope that is ok with you all ? ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 10:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. I could see potential usefulness in the page, but it's far from being educational now, and I see little reason to keep it around here. At the same time, I feel strongly that the page's creator should be individually contacted before it's deleted. Give them a chance, eh? The Jade Knight 12:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Can't find where I might have said keep before, so keep... and maybe move for now... unless it is a matter of conserving server resources. Emesee mobi 03:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly, pop cultural phenomena could be valid subjects for study, but from looking at this particular section I don't see that happening... it looks like somebody's attempt to start a fan site using Wikiversity as a platform, which isn't really what it's for. Now, if somebody started a project on the history and culture of teen/tween idols in general, how they've changed over the years, how their fans behave, what happens to them when they grow up, and what effects (good and bad) they have on fans, the music, movie, and TV industries, society in general, and the pop stars themselves, then that might be a valid thing for this site. Dtobias 03:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
These are both photos of contributors uploaded years ago and not used, neither user has contributed for a substantial time period. Since they are not being used they aren't useful to the project so I would suggest should be deleted. -- Adambro 10:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Adambro, I'm a pretty new custodian here on WV and I see you're an Admin on several WMF wikis. I'm curious about whether there is some precedent on other sisterprojects for deletion of the user photos of inactive users? Less than 2 years since an edit doesn't necessarily seem to me like a fatally long time? Seems to me there is more justification for deletion of Image:Vreemdekikker.jpg because of the lack of licensing information. Have you tried contacting both contributors by talk and email (if activated)? Sincerely, -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- I wonder which uploaded files are candidates for Template:GFDL-presumed. --JWSchmidt 10:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hi JWSchmidt. The concept of GFDL-presumed is one which I've seen labelled as "being phased out" elsewhere but I'm not familiar with this beyond that but I think it could be a little dangerous to presume that if an uploader hasn't explicitly stated that they release it under the GFDL to assume that was their intention. I would highlight that these aren't simply images of inactive users, they are images of inactive users which haven't ever being used anywhere and as such they don't benefit the project. If I were to put my Commons hat on then the policy there I understand is that userpage photos are only within the scope of that project whilst they are being used on a userpage and I can see a great deal of sense in taking that approach in this case. If these users do ever return then it would not be too difficult for them to simply upload a new image for use on their userpage so deleting this doesn't really cause any harm to them but leaving images like this lurking around when they're not being used makes it harder for the community to manage image issues. Adambro 10:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Unlike on edit pages, the upload page says "Images without proper information about their source and their license will be deleted." If this was the case when these were uploaded, I would say probably delete (unless there is some caveat), but otherwise keep. If the upload page said (which I think it should) "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL. Any copyrighted works not licensed under the GFDL will be deleted." then I would say gfdl-presume and keep. Emesee 20:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Emailed User:KJ (but has a licence given anyway) + Vreemdekikker sems not to react since about 6,5 months on her talk page msg about the licence. ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 20:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I've been away for a while, guys... go ahead and delete the file. Thanks for checking with me! I'd delete it myself but I'm not positive how to. Have a good one. KJ 14:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Done Image:KJpic.jpg deleted per uploader request. --mikeu talk 23:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Attack pages
Jimbo said, "I would recommend that a significant number of the attack pages be deleted". Please list below any pages that you view as attack pages. Start a new section for each and propose why the page should be deleted.
There have been challenges to the charges made by "Centaur of attention" on this page. For example, see this request for evidence from "Centaur of attention" to support charges made against Moulton. See also this and this. --JWSchmidt 12:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Note: User:Centaur of attention is now blocked and, therefore, can not edit the page to make any changes. --mikeu talk 02:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - This page seems to fall under what Wikipedia would call "soapboxing". There is no equivalent policy here. However, I find that since this is a user page, and not a page that is standardized to allow for feed back, I don't know if I could accept it in this format. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Neutral I've switched from Strong delete to Strong Neutral, I agree with Ottava's comment - but Centaur of Attention will need to alter the entire userpage to make it more friendly, clean it up - do what other editors have done and place templates, userboxes or other texts - but don't make it like an attack page, which will cause problems for other editors and also this site as it'll give us a bad reputation like certain people think badly of wikipedia because of their problems. Dark Mage 21:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
place link to attack page 2 here
This was one of the earlier attempts to calm things down. I respect the original intent of its creator to facilitate a better atmosphere among editors, but as Moulton is now banned, the project is futile. In any case, I think it is uncivil to create learning projects on any user, regardless of their standing. --McCormack 08:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- I've posted to Donek's talk page (the main author) here: User talk:Donek#Topic:Moulton Vs. Centaur of attention. If he votes delete as the main author, then I'd suggest that's pretty much a lay down misere. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 14:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest keeping the page and that we categorize it as part of the history of Wikiversity. There is a lesson to be learned from that page. --JWSchmidt 21:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Please stop enabling Moulton's attacking of others, you're not helping. All subpages of Moulton's 'project' should be deleted and any content forks located and deleted. Centaur of attention 23:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Centaur, the first aspect of this process is supposed to be acting politely. I would ask that you refrain from using terms like "enabling" when referring to "attacks". If you have a problem with a user's conduct, please take it to the appropriate place. This is for discussion of potential deletions. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. If you would also stop accusing others of attacking people without providing a diff it would be quite appreciated. Thank you. Emesee mobi 03:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Centaur, the first aspect of this process is supposed to be acting politely. I would ask that you refrain from using terms like "enabling" when referring to "attacks". If you have a problem with a user's conduct, please take it to the appropriate place. This is for discussion of potential deletions. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Please stop enabling Moulton's attacking of others, you're not helping. All subpages of Moulton's 'project' should be deleted and any content forks located and deleted. Centaur of attention 23:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest keeping the page and that we categorize it as part of the history of Wikiversity. There is a lesson to be learned from that page. --JWSchmidt 21:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete or move to the Wikiversity namespace. Emesee mobi 02:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Move to the Wikiversity namespace, where it would be more at home; such "navel-gazing" is questionable in mainspace. Study of large, significant wiki projects like Wikipedia is a valid subject for educational resources, but study of minor controversies within this project itself is best done in its own meta-project space. Dtobias 04:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- I am happy for it to be deleted, moved or other. I was going to nominate it for deletion myself after I saw JWSchmidt's investigation into events. The project I created would probably have just duplicated that. I am happy to see that action has been taken with regard to the unpleasantness that has lingered here for far too long. Donek (talk) - Go raibh mile maith agaibh 11:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral I'm not sure. Dark Mage 20:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Looking at how the consensus is developing here (i.e. "keep but move"), I'd like to table a new suggestion which builds on some of the previous comments: move it to a subpage of Wikiversity:Request custodian action. Thoughts? Keep the ideas coming, guys. --McCormack 06:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting idea, but how will other's voice his/her opinion if they don't know where the discussion is taking place - will a link be provided on the Custodian page to redirect others to the subpage instead of having to do constant searches for something like this. Dark Mage 08:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- What about moving it as a subpage of the Wikipedia Ethics project, since there appears to be no consensus to delete that project? --darklama 14:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
It has been moved out of the topic namespace to Wikiversity namespace. We can continue discussion, or archive it. Emesee 19:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Chinese/Japanese poetry copyvio
This request applies to the following pages:
See also: Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/September_2008#Japan_high_school_songs and User talk:Okanosato. --mikeu talk 18:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC) These pages are probably copyright violations. See User:Hillgentleman's comments at Wikiversity:Colloquium#Japan_high_school_songs. If they were in English, we could probably check them out as part of a deletion request process, but as they are incomprehensible to most of us, I think we should play safe and delete anyway. At best, they should be transferred to a sister project in the appropriate language. --McCormack 08:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Noting that the author removed the {{dr}} tags before any decision was notified here and without answering the questions on his talk page. I'm reinserting the tags until we have a concrete decision about what steps to take next. For example, the tags could be replaced with a new template which says "it has been decided to transwiki and then delete this resource...". --McCormack 05:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC) Is this new page related? 携帯電話と人々 -- Jtneill - Talk - c 09:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC) More pages from the same person (9 pages in the second column) --Gbaor 09:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Comment I can think of good reasons to have multi-lingual resources here at en (one great example is Romance of the Three Kingdoms, but even that one might be more better suited at beta multilingual hub). But in this case most of us have no idea what the content really is, and there has been a suggestion that these are copyvio. If that is true then transwiki is out of the question. We have already tried to contact them on the talk pages in english. I think the best thing to do now would be to try to find someone that speaks the language to leave a note on the user talk pages and suggest that they participate at beta or ja where there is a community of speakers of the language. We really don't have the resources to patrol for copyvios, libel or other inappropriate conent in other languages. --mikeu talk 00:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC) REASON: Most of this page [Case Studies1] became redundant (split and moved to other pages), but this was still edited after attempted reorganization. The talk page was active, and the main reason it was kept. I nominate this one for deletion, and if there is wanted content then it should be split-out and moved. Dzonatas 02:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
REASON: This [Case Studies2] is a forked version of Case Studies1. I believe this page shows the type of hypotheticals that others are concerned about, and one can only get a full picture of the situation is to review Case Studies1. The need to look back at Case Studies1 defeats the purpose of hypotheticals. Proper hypotheticals should be presented as just facts without positive or negative assertions or (obvious) use of biased words. Dzonatas 02:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
This was tagged as a result of recent events with claims of it being an attack page, but it has been improved since the events. The content may not be broad enough for its title. I feel there is a more concise version, User:JWSchmidt/Blog/16_September_2008, that includes the basic presentation of this page and a few others. If someone wants to immediately save this content, feel free to move it to your userspace and subsequently remove the DR tag. Dzonatas 03:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment Moulton has placed an older version on his userspace. Dzonatas 01:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia Ethics/Case Studies/Concordances, Dossiers, Scathing Indictments, and EthicsThe Wikipedia Ethics/Case Studies/Concordances, Dossiers, Scathing Indictments, and Ethics page was originally split off from the Wikipedia Ethics/Case Studies1 page. I removed the duplicate text from that, but this really should just be deleted. It has none of the features of a case study, and instead is just Moulton arguing his position regarding old disputes. Even if we wanted to use those conflicts as case studies, they would need to be completely rewritten. As it stands, the page is completely outside the scope of Wikiversity. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 07:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
User:Moulton's didactic character subpages (deleted)Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.
Possible attempt at advertising, or article about an individual who is non-notable. Google searches are fairly limited for this person, and nothing comes up about this individual on any search engines, so it may be a hoax article. Thanks, AC. --Sunstar NW XP 12:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Possible hoax page, nothing in any search engines about Danielle Lloyd being a motivational speaker. Article is not sufficient enough for speedy deletion, so listed here. --Sunstar NW XP 12:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
This page had been tagged for both deletion (for the reason "This information is already merged into the main article") and merge (with What is HTML). There is a discussion at Talk:Introduction to HTML and another at Talk:What is HTML. Please comment. --mikeu talk 11:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Category:Earth Stations has a deletion request with a stated reason of "The information persented here isn't verifiable and is almost certainly false." Please comment. --mikeu talk 20:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Topic:Ocean engineering and naval architecture per author request. [5] Please review. --mikeu talk 20:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |