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
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)
This article seems to be an encyclopedic dump, without any learning-related material and seemingly little prospect for being made into a learning resource. Perhaps the material could be shifted to wp, but it doesn't seem to belong on wv. -- Jtneill - Talk 13:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- It seems to be part of a larger set of resources Category:United States currency. But I'm still not seeing how this relates to learning. Why isn't this material on WP instead? -- Jtneill - Talk 13:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- It also seems Cormaggio has commented about this here: User_talk:Km#Currency. -- Jtneill - Talk 13:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, what I looked at before was taken, and adapted, from Wikipedia - and with no indication of how it suited Wikiversity's aims. I would have deleted them on the spot, but I wanted to encourage the (new, and relatively young) user. I'd support their deletion now - though I wonder if all we have to point people to is Wikiversity:Learning resources? Cormaggio talk 19:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think there are a bunch of pages like this related to currencies around here. Perhaps they could all be turned into a book and put on Wikibooks. If they are just duplicates of Wikipedia content, I'd lean towards delete. If they were adapted, then it seems more likely that the author may have had some intention of making this appropriate for Wikiversity and in which case they may be sort of like a handout. Emesee 21:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- It also seems Cormaggio has commented about this here: User_talk:Km#Currency. -- Jtneill - Talk 13:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Now, here's a topic worthy of putting in one's two cents, times 50. This is a rather weirdly named resource; if it were to be kept, then "Dollar coins of the United States" would make more sense (cents?). But recounting that information would fit better in Wikipedia than Wikiversity. U.S. numismatic history might be worthy of a Wikiversity topic or two, but they'd need to be better defined and organized than this. Dtobias 04:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment Original content found at Wikipedia:Dollar_(United_States_coin) and related pages, and they have been reorganized here. Despite the reasons listed above, these pages here on Wikiversity can be obviously listed for speedy delete for lack of attribution. Any improvement would need to start from scratch with proper attribution. Dzonatas 17:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I've laughed my head off over this a few times. Perhaps this is just simply too damn stupid. It has educational value, and doubtless falls within policy - but do we really have to sink this low? I'd like to see what others think. --McCormack 12:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the toilet is generally lower than the sink, but they both need cleaning from time to time. Until sinks are covered too, you'll still have to say that Wikiversity covers "everything but the kitchen sink". Or the bathroom sink, too. And we'll be showered with affection, if this whole thing doesn't tank. Dtobias 04:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think this guide is for deletion. Cleaning a toilet is not a low, it's sth that's in our everyday life. And there may be some people that need a guide for this, because for some reasons they haven't learned that from their parents. Personally, I needed cleaning tips sometime before. If it doesn't fall in WV's scope, then maybe it could be moved to WB, but in my opinion it's not for deletion. I wonder though, would this article be nominated for deletion if it was about the cleaning of medical stations or hospitals? Yours, --
-- (profile|chit chat|email) 12:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- As I said, it has educational value, doubtless. More than that, I'm sure it falls within WV's scope. But I think this is the kind of thing that Uncyclopedia would welcome on its pages as a parody of Wikiversity. Anyway, I'm just interested in seeing what people think. --McCormack 12:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with this article; it is in many ways an excellent article and perhaps from another point of view could even be nominated for featured status, e.g,. its referenced, well structured, well-written, complete, illustrated, and achieves its purpose. It clearly has educational relevance for professional skills training for an important industry. I looked at the history though and was a bit suspicious that the article was pasted virtually as complete, so am guessing that it mightt have come from somewhere, but I didn't find any evidence of this on a quick google search. -- Jtneill - Talk 12:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- "bit suspicious that the article was pasted virtually as complete" --> Perhaps it was moved here from Uncyclopedia? --McCormack 12:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Featured status - yes, I could imagine this as well, but please clean up the references before proposing it ;) --McCormack 13:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- I had a look at uncyclopedia and the closest I found there was Worst 100 New Ways to Clean the Toilet of All Time. -- Jtneill - Talk 13:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Featured status - yes, I could imagine this as well, but please clean up the references before proposing it ;) --McCormack 13:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- "bit suspicious that the article was pasted virtually as complete" --> Perhaps it was moved here from Uncyclopedia? --McCormack 12:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fy789 - and search google "how to clean a toilet site:.edu" Emesee 03:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Nothing came of this effort, and I don't think it will be constructive. By definition, participants will be absent. --McCormack 12:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Support--Gbaor 11:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- THis is an important topic for wiki studies. The page hurts nothing and might be developed in the future. Get a life rather than try to delete people's work. --JWSchmidt 00:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- This inspired me to create this learning project: Wikiversity participants who choose to leave, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 11:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Emesee 03:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
No concensus to delete, page has been kept. --mikeu talk 19:15, 10 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)
REASON: Article, created by anon user, contains absolutely 0 content. Including it in any Historical category is unhelpful to users (it diverts them from real content); let someone come and recreate topic if there is ever a desire -- The Jade Knight 09:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- ARGUMENTS -
- Hmmmm... this is a good example of a broader issue. Is an essentially empty page not wanted on WV - is it viewed as "empty" and therefore useless, or "nascent", a stub, a place for possible future work. On the one hand, having empty corners isn't great particularly for newcomers. On the other hand, having some somewhat dormant open spaces for future potentially connection, as 'markers' could well be beneficial. I can see good arguments on both sides, but I think the hung jury (if it turns out to be hung) must fall on the side of keep rather than delete if we are to foster an atmosphere of support, openness, and positivity. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- I personally think this is one of the greatest hurdles for Wikiversity right now: new users think they're going to find learning content, and click on a page (found either by categories or internal links or a search), discover it has nothing, and be frustrated; especially for those clicking on content through internal lists or the Browse feature. Additionally, many users feel intimidated to "take over" a stub page; it seems that there is a preference for creating a new page rather than working on the abandonned page; that hardly fosters community. The Jade Knight 10:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- I tend to think that the hurdle is to get users to stop looking for content and start looking for ways to participate. There's already enough content out there and theres better communities developing it. Countrymike 07:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- My idea of getting new users to participate is to funnel them into projects with other users and getting them to contribute together in a positive, non-hostile environment. I think that when users find all these empty pages, they feel like nothing's going on at Wikiversity, and there's nothing for them to contribute to. The Jade Knight 07:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- I tend to think that the hurdle is to get users to stop looking for content and start looking for ways to participate. There's already enough content out there and theres better communities developing it. Countrymike 07:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- I personally think this is one of the greatest hurdles for Wikiversity right now: new users think they're going to find learning content, and click on a page (found either by categories or internal links or a search), discover it has nothing, and be frustrated; especially for those clicking on content through internal lists or the Browse feature. Additionally, many users feel intimidated to "take over" a stub page; it seems that there is a preference for creating a new page rather than working on the abandonned page; that hardly fosters community. The Jade Knight 10:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: this title is too obscure. If an Albanian sea port historian ever turns up here, I'm sure he'll be able to create a new page. --McCormack 12:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmmm... this is a good example of a broader issue. Is an essentially empty page not wanted on WV - is it viewed as "empty" and therefore useless, or "nascent", a stub, a place for possible future work. On the one hand, having empty corners isn't great particularly for newcomers. On the other hand, having some somewhat dormant open spaces for future potentially connection, as 'markers' could well be beneficial. I can see good arguments on both sides, but I think the hung jury (if it turns out to be hung) must fall on the side of keep rather than delete if we are to foster an atmosphere of support, openness, and positivity. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Support deletion no posibility of becoming an effective learning resource. Salmon of Doubt 12:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- keep I have started to develop the Albanian sea port history learning project. --JWSchmidt 13:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- keep - someone wants to help build it up ? There were some more edits to make it now even more useful for more eyes. ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 17:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Talk:Albanian sea port history/Comparing with the growth of Wikiversity#moving of the learning resource, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 20:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Given the fact that Erkan Yilmaz has now introduced real content (though somewhat encyclopedic) on the page, I withdraw the request that the page be deleted. That said, I am uncertain if it is appropriate to include JWSchmidt's learning project at the page. The Jade Knight 08:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Talk:Albanian sea port history/Comparing with the growth of Wikiversity#moving of the learning resource, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 20:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- keep - There's no harm in this article, why delete it while it could simply be improved. Dark Mage 17:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose deletion. See comments here. Countrymike 02:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)- Keep Emesee mobi 02:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep; it may have been empty when nominated, but somebody did give it some content since... not all that much, but a nucleus on which an educational project might be built. Dtobias 04:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
There was no clear consensus to delete, and the page has changed significantly since the request was actively discussed. The page has been kept. --mikeu talk 17:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
REASON: I was asked if I wanted to speedily delete this page since I moved/forked the content, but I'm not really the author of the content. I believe the request spawned from this thread. My reply is to move on in an oversighted way. It was suggested I post this here to resolve this. Dzonatas 12:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Arguments:
Done There have been no objections, so the page was speedy deleted. --mikeu talk 11:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
REASON: I was asked if I wanted to speedily delete this page since I moved/forked the content, but I'm not really the author of the content. I believe the request spawned from this thread. My reply is to move on in an oversighted way. It was suggested I post this here to resolve this. Dzonatas 12:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Arguments:
Done There have been no objections, so the page was speedy deleted. --mikeu talk 11:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
My old request was removed. --Sunstar NW XP 19:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Here is the diff for future reference. I suggest any votes or comments be readded into these two subpages, or be included in consideration during discussion of these two subpages. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Note, this request was removed here. It was removed in a bit of confusion, that I didn't realize at first. I mostly wanted the two entries already listed above removed from the entry here (to avoid duplication). I have since removed them per Sunstar's edit above justifying that he was accepting removing of the entry as a whole. If there is any further confusing over this, please contact me. The above were pulled out, as they deal with a blank page issue that no longer pertains to the Ethics project. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Per the discussion at the Colloqiuum, and User:Jimbo Wales say on the matter, regarding Moulton (talk • email • contribs • stats • logs • global account) and the ensuing discussion, I have listed it here. -- Sunstar NW XP 19:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. While the concept may one day be worthwhile, sifting out any salvageable bits from this is unlikely to be worth the time and effort for any bits thus gleaned. KillerChihuahua 19:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Nominator: Please state the reason for deletion on this page. --JWSchmidt 19:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- It is because of the discussion, and KillerChihuahua's reasoning. Thanks, AC --Sunstar NW XP 19:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Please state the reason for deletion on this page, in order to make possible a Wikiversity page deletion review discussion. Just 2 or 3 sentences. --JWSchmidt 19:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- It is because of the discussion, and KillerChihuahua's reasoning. Thanks, AC --Sunstar NW XP 19:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose blanket deletion. The "inclusion" note above clearly shows that the nom did not consider the deletion cases fully from what is being requested in the previous sections. I would like to see the request respected as I made it. There also is a request to move the entire project to WAS's space, and that request should be respected as well. There is well enough evidence that not everybody has considered the intention of all the participants, and the blanket deletion appears supported as against one user. It is wrong to delete other's content because of what a few hold against one user. Dzonatas 19:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- See also [1]. Dzonatas 02:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Dzonatas. As you know this project better than some of us, perhaps you could be specific about which pages you consider to be worth keeping? That would be a great help! Thanks. --McCormack 08:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- See also [1]. Dzonatas 02:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- McCormack, you left a comment on my userpage that hopefully you will review before you support this style of blanket deletion. There is no doubt that the ethics project needs clean-up, but I feel your desire to further push this blanket deletion (beyond Wales's input) beyond even the "significant amount" of 'case studies' is a too aggressive. It appears the action is more out of retaliation, and I'm sorry to say that even just to notion to gain 'consensus' about it after a block is questionable. I thought that would be obvious. There is no need to drag others through that mess. I would highly recommend: 1) to retract your/this "blanket" deletion request, and 2) to let the remaining participants of the "ethics" project clean it up. If you think the block on Mouton will help us clean-it up then let it stand at that. There is no need to disrespect the rest of the people. The 5 day notice thing only causes stress. I don't think we can notify all participants in 5 days. I'm sure there are a lot of other things to do here on Wikiversity than rush to get this cleaned-up in 5 days. You made it well obvious you haven't considered all the content. For example, do you find anything wrong with this page: [[2]]. Do you feel those that have submitted essays to it should be categorized as "bogus" or wipe-out due to an action against "Moulton"? I feel like you are holding a gun and asking us to dance, and I don't like that feeling. This is very alienating. Dzonatas 14:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Neutral: I would support the limited deletion of certain elements, but I oppose deletion of the entire project at this time. The Jade Knight 01:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. I explained why in this thread: [3]. And then Jimbo Wales has not participated a lot [4] in wikiversity and his opinions are just his opinions. Hillgentleman|Talk 02:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- I am against splitting the discussion into two, and this request for deletion in premature in light of the clean-up efforts of wikiversitians like Darklama. Let us keep the discussion in the Colloquium. Hillgentleman|Talk 02:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think we can discuss rescue options and other options on the colloquium, but I think this is a good place to gather some votes in order to see roughly where consensus lies - because the consensus has been very difficult with this project. --McCormack 08:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- I am against splitting the discussion into two, and this request for deletion in premature in light of the clean-up efforts of wikiversitians like Darklama. Let us keep the discussion in the Colloquium. Hillgentleman|Talk 02:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- I wanted to note that as an individual with one such page in the project (Wikipedia Ethics/BLP, Ottava Rima's investigation), I fall under a conflict of interest, and I will accept any community determined response to that page as necessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Support. With the proviso that editors in the project should be given time (e.g. 5 days) to rescue any of their contributions which they consider to be valuable and move these temporarily to their user pages. A subsequent discussion could then determine how these rescued elements could be repurposed. --McCormack 08:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)- Support. This project itself has been causing problems here on Wikiversity, although it maybe useful by some users I'll support the deletion - however though out of respect of the founder of the project it should be moved to his/her own userpage or subpage, we should give enough time for the founder or any participants to save his/her work. Dark Mage 13:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Launched as method for attacking specific Wikipedians under the guise of "studies on Wikipedia ethics." This project contained a number of attack pages and outed several Wikipedians, and was strenuously maintained by several who had personal axes to grind with those they used as "case studies." All subpages, and there are many, need to deleted as well. Centaur of attention 18:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Someone should state the reason for deletion at the top of this page section. Write 2 or 3 English sentences giving the reason and not relying on links to other pages. --JWSchmidt 19:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose A few bad apples should not be a reason to prevent a project from trying to blossom. Blanket deletions and deletions as a punitive punishment should not be encouraged. To delete this project would be to support punishing the innocent as collateral damage, and would be to assume bad faith on the part of all the other contributors to the project. How to proceed with this project should be left up to the remaining contributors; Wikiversity participants should assume in good faith that they can improve this project, and have the desire to resolve concerns. --dark
lama 20:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC) - Oppose I've previously asked for someone to state the reason for deletion. I guess there is no reason to delete this page. Other sub-pages have been marked for deletion but not listed on this page.
Maybe someone could make a new page section here and list some of the sub-pages.See #Attack pages. --JWSchmidt 21:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC) - Oppose blanket deletion. Do not beleive that this project was originally launched as method for attacking specific Wikipedians under the guise of "studies on Wikipedia ethics." as has been previously stated. Countrymike 22:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- I believe it may have been a mix of the two. I still oppose blanket deletion. The Jade Knight 06:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Leaning towards oppose, a bit to my own dismay. Emesee mobi 03:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion. Despite its rocky history, it is a valid subject for study which will hopefully get more serious and balanced treatment in the future. Dtobias 04:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion. Getting the ethics right is fundamental to the long-term success and well-being of all our associated projects. A pity progress has been stymied and people have left for a few thoughtless words. luke 18:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I've deleted "my" page (Wikipedia Ethics/BLP, Ottava Rima's investigation). If the community wants it restored, please vote. I do not want it restored at this time. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose blanket deletion. A number of pages within the project should be deleted, and others rewritten, but I'd like to give that a shot before deleting the whole thing. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 23:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment Archived discussion due its reason for nomination with a time limit of 5 days, "per discussion at Colloquium." More than 10 days have passed. Other pages have been listed here on RfD, individually, for further discussion. Dzonatas 18:02, 27 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)
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)
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) |
