"Cólera en el Ingenio" is an article that was linked to the "Medical microbiology/Sugar in the times of cholera" 2018 article that is still published. It seems as if the "Cólera en el Ingenio" article was deleted in 2016 with the understanding that the Spanish transcribed was unreadable. As it is a transcription from 1833, presumably the Spanish orthography was specific to its period. And as the author of the "Medical microbiology" article indicates, this is a critical source for students of the Caribbean. The original source housed in Cuba is no longer extant, and so it that much more important to undelete the transcription that was previously made available. (The preceding unsigned comment was added by 92.7.167.194 (talk • contribs) 1 October 2022‎)

@92.7.167.194: This has been restored as a subpage of Medical microbiology/Sugar in the times of cholera. Please add comments to its Talk page to explain why the Spanish resource belongs there. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 04:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I started a new discussion about the document in the talk section, however, the original article doesn't seem to appear on the resource page. It's still blank? 92.7.167.194 (discuss) 12:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, this has been restored as a subpage. See Medical microbiology/Sugar in the times of cholera/Cólera_en_el_Ingenio. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 18:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you please restore this page: Fermat's enigma decrypted (18:52, 25 September 2022, at the end of the page)  ;)

Many thanks,

Cordially, EclairEnZ (discuss • contribs) 18:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done by User:Guy vandegrift on October 15. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was taking the suggestions from the editors over at Wikibooks to move my page over to here in view of the fact that they want to delete it over there.

For some reason, someone has reverted my edits and added a Categorical tag which wasn't there to begin with which places my page in the Deletion Requests Category. Is this a mistake? Or, is this intentional? How can I remedy this? Thank you. -- Vinyasi (discuss • contribs) 03:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has been corrected by the editor who acknowledged the mistake on their talk page. Please disregard this question. -- Vinyasi (discuss • contribs) 03:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the page in question -- Free Energy does not Exist -- probably should be deleted. This content was already under discussion for deletion at Wikibooks, and all the exact same arguments which were presented there also apply here. This isn't research, this isn't educational, it's simply nonsense. Wikiversity may have looser policies on content than other Wikimedia sites, but that doesn't make it a dumping ground for everything that got (rightly) rejected from those other sites, especially when it's likely to be actively misleading to students trying to use this site as a learning resource. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 08:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Omphalographer It is certainly research. Whether or not it is junk research and a waste of everyone else's time is a different question. And, so far, the Wikiversity community has agreed to accept this type of research if it doesn't cause disruptions. However, it also doesn't have to be hosted in main space. It can be moved to either user space or draft space. User space seems more appropriate for this resource. You should also use the resource's talk page to provide a brief summary of the concerns that would help others understand why the article cannot be trusted as is. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dave Braunschweig I placed a tag at the top of the text, entitled: { {Original research} }. Thanks. -- Vinyasi (discuss • contribs) 16:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Omphalographer Where, among the various uses of the term of: "research" over there did anyone ever say what you are saying, now, and for the first time, here?

• Here (your usage)...

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion

"This isn't research"

Versus...

• There (their usage)...

https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Free_Energy_does_not_Exist&diff=4208966&oldid=4208936

"This is original research of the most egregious kind trying to pretend that the laws of physics are a fantasy. It doesn't belong here."

• And, there...

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Requests_for_deletion#Free_Energy_does_not_Exist

"This is outside the scope of Wikibooks which, while more tolerant of original research than Wikipedia, does not accept out-and-out made-up-at-school stuff like this."

• My usage...

"Six years of independent research does not amount to made-up-at-school stuff."

• Their usage...

"You've made the point yourself "Six years of independent research". This is therefore Original Research, out of scope for Wikibooks..."

"Even if what you are writing is TRUE the fact that you yourself did the research and it isn't part of accept science" [ergo, egregious] "= it is out of scope and will be deleted."

• My usage...

" ... Is this Original Research? You can bet that it is!"

• Their usage...

"Would it have been simpler just to say "this is original research on power simulation games"?"

• My usage...

"But it's more than a mere game since, by posting it, and researching it (online), I bump into people whose experiments may help me understand."

• Their usage...

"Changed vote - see below I think I vote to delete, because of WB:NOR. You said it yourself twice: it was your own research, and there are no reliable (non-primary, and non-original-research) sources for it. If you want to post it, post it somewhere that accepts original research. That's my opinion, and I hope you consider it."

"Read that link. OR seems to be accepted at Wikiversity - "Wikibooks also allows instructional guides, but that resource doesn't allow original research" - which indicates OR is allowed there."

1. Primary research — Wikibooks is not a place to publish primary research. Examples of things not allowed on Wikibooks include proposing new theories and solutions, presenting original ideas, defining new terms, and coining new words. In short, primary research should be published elsewhere, such as a peer-reviewed journal, or our sister project Wikiversity.
2. Wikiversity is the place for original research, including primary or secondary research. This includes interpreting primary sources, forming ideas, or taking observations. Ethical guidelines must adhere, see Wikiversity:Research ethics. Pages with original research should be marked with the original research or research project templates.

• My usage...

"Help me to understand this concept of: "primary research"."

"...how many primary sources of research does it take for each of them to be considered secondary?"

• Their usage...

"This is how I understand it" ... "You research something" ... "But your case seems to be able to just post it on a wiki that allows original-research-that-is-not-outright-false. That would be Wikiversity."

Among all of these dozens of examples, I would suggest that MarcGarver said it best by using the word, “egregious”: reflecting the positive connotations of “standing out from the flock”. I believe he used this choice of adjective because these wikis are comprised of a community of editors who, if they can't agree on anything, have decided to delete whatever they cannot collectively contribute (to) since its tolerance would constitute a blockade (of sorts) and, thus, a lack of their collective accessibility. This would be a contradiction of their desire and intention to participate. Hence, “egregious” is the operational word, here. Nothing else matters. Nor does it matter that this problem is not my fault! Yet, because I attempt to make-up for whatever discrepancy of education may have occurred from our collective sources of learning by providing original research of my own, I am blamed for somebody else's problem merely because I am trying to fix it! Go back to sleep, or else accept me. This is not my choice. This is yours. I cannot change my “skin” (my psychological profile) any more than anyone else can (apparently). It'll probably take a miracle, otherwise. I am not a miracle worker despite my egregious mannerisms.

By the way, after doing the research to write this response, I've learned of the necessity of posting an appropriate tag at the top of the text, entitled: { {Original research} }. Thanks. -- Vinyasi (discuss • contribs) 16:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinyasi and @Omphalographer This is not the place to discuss specific merits and issues with the article itself. Please use Talk:Free Energy does not Exist so the history of the discussion is retained with the resource, and hopefully any improvements can be incorporated. Use this page to discuss whether or not the article should be kept as is, deleted, or moved to a different namespace. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 16:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinyasi: We include both the Original Research tag and also a notice or warning on controversial research. At this point, noted by multiple users at Wikibooks, your research and/or findings are controversial. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 16:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dave Braunschweig Egregious versus controversial... ;-) -- Vinyasi (discuss • contribs) 17:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind, this page is a substub and has been so since 2007. It does not introduce sustainability; instead, it contains single section "Just Sustainability is more refined concept of sustainability", which has much narrower scope, of "Just sustainability". In this state, it is not useful. It can be recreated if it achieves the status of minimum useful content. Since I do not know the definition of "substub" in Wikiversity, I may be wrong on policy, in which case I apologize.

An alternative would be to move it to Just sustainability, where it would remain in this substub or stub state. Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If there is nothing wrong with Introduction to sustainability, it could be merged onto Sustainability, which is slightly better developed. I could do that for you (see Special:MergeHistory.)--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 03:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is wrong with the content is that it less than "minimum useful content": it defines "Just sustainability" in a pretty obvious way, gives two references, and that's it. As for merging to Sustainability, I don't know how to do it since that page itself is in a pretty useless and to me confusing state; there is Sustainability/Activities, completely useless (and should be deleted, probably) and Sustainability/Handbook, which is no handbook and could be moved to Handbook of sustainability. In so far as you do not support deletion, would you support moving to Just sustainability so that the title matches the stubby or substubby content? I am fine with moving as the second best option. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dan Polansky: I just went ahead and deleted Introduction to sustainability. Thanks for pointing it out. @Dave Braunschweig: is this the right policy for a stub created in 2007? The alternative would be to move it into the author's user space.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 07:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      @Dan Polansky: Please see Wikiversity: Proposed Deletions. We rarely have deletion discussions here. If you think something isn't worth keeping, just tag it with {{subst:prod}}. If no one cares, it will get deleted after awhile. If anyone cares, then the talk page for that resource can usually be used to address those concerns.

      @Guy vandegrift: It's up to you. This is fine. I personally would have used prod, but I don't think anyone will miss it. I did replace it with a redirect to Sustainability, though.

      Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      Sorry and thank you. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 15:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This set of pages was created in 2007 as part of a high school class project. It documents how to use a few basic features of the Macromedia Studio MX web authoring suite.

Macromedia Studio MX was released in 2002 as a software suite consisting of Dreamweaver (web design), Flash (animation), and Fireworks (image editing). The suite is no longer available for purchase, and probably no longer runs on modern computers. Fireworks was discontinued in 2012. Flash was discontinued in 2020, and the underlying technology has been removed from web browsers. Dreamweaver does still exist as a standalone Adobe product, but it has changed significantly over the last 20 years, to the extent that the fairly specific instructions given on these pages (like this one explaining how to insert an image) are no longer applicable.

As a result, these pages are all intrinsically obsolete, and should be deleted. The Web design resource is in better shape, and covers similar topics, so it could make a good redirect target.

Additionally, some of the images in these pages were improperly licensed. They were uploaded under GFDL/CC-SA, but they consist primarily of the Macromedia Studio and/or Windows XP user interface, which was not created by the uploader and cannot be relicensed by them. These images are justifiable fair use in the pages where they currently appear, but should be deleted when the pages containing them are removed. I've started retagging the images to aid in this process.

To address a couple of likely reactions:

• "Should we move this to user pages or a draft?" No, we shouldn't. The students who were responsible for this project have long since graduated. The author hasn't made any edits since 2007 (probably when the class ended), and as far as I'm aware, none of the pages have been substantially edited by anyone else. And given that Macromedia Studio is long obsolete, this seems unlikely to change.
• "Wouldn't this be of historical interest?" Not really. Macromedia Studio was fairly popular in its day, but that day is long past. If a researcher needed to understand how to use it for some reason, the software came with comprehensive built-in documentation. If that wasn't enough, or if they wanted more perspectives, there were countless books, tutorials, training videos, and so on, which were published when the software was still current. Any of those things would be far more informative than the very limited information on these pages.
• "Shouldn't we wait for people to finish merging the content to Web design?" The merge notice was added in 2011. There's been plenty of time for it to be merged. And I'm not sure any of it is even mergeable, since the content in Web Page is almost entirely focused on details of how to operate Macromedia Studio, not more generally applicable principles.

- Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 20:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Omphalographer: Thank you for helping us clean this wiki. As per the instructions at the top, I added the {{dr}} delete request template to Web Page. @Dave Braunschweig: you may wish to correct me on this, but I believe the purpose of the dr request is to allow users to request movement of their work to user space, as there is no reason to give users unsolicited storage space on this wiki. Pages with this dr template eventually are deleted but I don't know the details concerning how or when. Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 00:11, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy vandegrift: Thanks for adding the template, I forgot that step. With regards to user space, Wikiversity's policy on the matter is a little vague: Wikiversity:User page simply describes what user pages are, not what it would be acceptable to use them for, and some pages like Help:Blog suggest that it's acceptable to host personal content in user pages. (My personal feeling is that these policies should probably be updated, but I'm not sure I want to rock that boat quite yet.) Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 01:25, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with deleting this. It doesn't appear to have any current value and there are other resources that teach students about web pages. Perhaps we should leave the landing page with a redirect to Internet Fundamentals. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 00:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to delete → I vote to move into user space (but will accept deletion by someone else)--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 11:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)---Changed vote due to trouble it takes me to delete. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 20:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This project now resides in User:Kizer/Web Page. By moving this into userspace I closed the discussion of whether it belongs in mainspace. In the future we can decide whether it should stay in userspace. The choice of userspace arises from the fact that I do not have and do not want to have the privilege to mass delete a project and all its subpages.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 22:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting deletion of these pages for various reasons:

• We have used Wikiversity mainly for several how-to guides for how to use the software, which don't seem to fit Wikiversity's scope super well, and want to move away from Wikiversity because of this.
• Instead, the Wikibase Stakeholder Group wants to manage Wikibase documentation by itself, avoiding duplication of effort by a small community (i.e. deletion reason 4: moving to another project due to scope)
• Request from myself and Loz.ross as authors (i.e. deletion reason 5: author request)

Thank you, -- SFauconnier (discuss • contribs) 16:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SFauconnier: The page is fairly popular here (114 visits in the last 30 days). Rather than deleting it, perhaps a soft redirect would be more appropriate. I've linked it to Wikipedia for now. If there is a better source to link to, please let us know. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Landmark Education (and 30 subpages)
• Werner Erhard (and two subpages)

These pages are, to put it bluntly, an unredeemable mess. They are not a useful learning resource in their current form, and I cannot imagine any process of editing, short of outright deletion, which could resolve that.

Landmark Worldwide is a controversial training seminar program with links to Scientology, and Werner Erhard was the founder of Landmark. While a discussion of this group could possibly be of interest in a discussion of new religious movements or other associated topics, these pages are not written to further that goal, and Wikiversity does not appear to have any existing course material in which these pages would be relevant.

The vast majority of these pages were created and written entirely by User:Abd, with some edits from User:Cirt. Both users stopped editing these pages around 2015. Cirt stopped editing altogether at that point, and Abd was banned from all WMF projects in 2018. As far as I'm aware, there have been no substantive edits to these pages by other users, and the Balkanized structure and personal content of these pages makes it difficult to imagine how anyone else could step in.

Abd was, by his own admission, an active participant in Landmark programs at the time he wrote these pages, and he used these pages as a personal blog from which he could defend the program. Some of the pages, like .../Blaming the victim/Snider and .../Never going back, are responses to blog posts discussing Landmark, and often border upon attacks upon the writers. Others, like .../Abd bliki/Wikipediocracy, represent his attempts to continue a discussion on the topic from a forum he was banned from. What they all have in common, though, is that they are nearly all reactions to other content, rather than material which can stand on its own to provide educational value.

In short: these articles are a little walled garden consisting of material which is not part of any curriculum, and which would be difficult or impossible to turn into one. They need to go. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 23:04, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to see this one moved to user space under User:Abd. It's his personal essays and are/were very meaningful to him. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 00:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All of Abd's other "personal essays" were deleted from his userspace in 2018. I see no reason why we should make an exception for these pages simply because they were previously overlooked. If this content was important to him, he's had plenty of time to make backups or move it elsewhere. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 23:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "assume good faith" doctrine favors moving them into abd's user space. I won't object if the consensus is to delete, though.Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 03:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Omphalographer The other pages were deleted for cause. These weren't overlooked. I was about to write that we have two votes, one for and one against. We'll have to wait until others provide their support one way or the other. But we now have three votes. We can continue to wait for others to comment, but at this point I'll move the content to User: space. If others want it deleted, we can address that when they share their concerns. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 03:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikistution/Amendment III (Quartering of Soldiers)
Wikistution/Amendment II (Right to Bear Arms)
Wikistution/Amendment IV (Search and Seizure)
Wikistution/Amendment IX (Construction of the Constitution)
Wikistution/Amendment I (Freedom of Religion, of the Press, and of Assembly)
Wikistution/Amendment VIII (Cruel and Unusual Punishments)
Wikistution/Amendment VII (Trial by Jury in Civil Cases)
Wikistution/Amendment VI (Speedy Trial; Confrontation of Witnesses)
Wikistution/Amendment V (Trial and Punishment; Compensation)
Wikistution/Amendment XIII (Abolition of Slavery)
Wikistution/Amendment XII (Selection of the President and Vice President)
Wikistution/Amendment XIV (Citizenship Rights)
Wikistution/Amendment XIX (Woman Suffrage)
Wikistution/Amendment XI (Judicial Limits)
Wikistution/Amendment XVIII (Prohibition)
Wikistution/Amendment XVII (Election of Senators)
Wikistution/Amendment XVI (Income Tax)
Wikistution/Amendment XV (Voting Rights)
Wikistution/Amendment XXIII (Presidential Vote for District of Columbia)
Wikistution/Amendment XXII (Term Limit of the President)
Wikistution/Amendment XXIV (Abolition of Poll Taxes)
Wikistution/Amendment XXIX
Wikistution/Amendment XXI (Alcohol Consumption Age)
Wikistution/Amendment XXI (Prohibition Repealed)
Wikistution/Amendment XXVIII
Wikistution/Amendment XXVII (Regulation of Pay for Congress)
Wikistution/Amendment XXVI (Voting Age)
Wikistution/Amendment XXV (Presidential Disability and Succession)
Wikistution/Amendment XXX
Wikistution/Amendment XXXI
Wikistution/Amendment XX (Presidential and Congressional Terms)
Wikistution/Amendment X (Powers and Rights of the States and of the People)
Wikistution/Article III (The Judiciary)
Wikistution/Article II (The Executive)
Wikistution/Article IV (The States)
Wikistution/Article I (The Legislature)
Wikistution/Article VII (Ratification)
Wikistution/Article VII Ratification
Wikistution/Article VI (Debts, Supremacy, Oaths)
Wikistution/Article V (Amendments)
Wikistution/Preamble

• Wikistution (and 41 subpages)

If this were actually the United States Constitution, it would belong on Wikisource - and, what do you know, it's already there.

However, this isn't actually the Constitution. The authors have made a number of changes to it, and invited users to make more. Most obviously, the 28th, 29th, and 30th amendments are completely fictitious; more subtly, the 21st amendment has had a fourth section silently added to it, and there are a variety of other unmarked changes. Since some of these changes were made before the pages were imported from Wikibooks in 2010, not all of them are visible in the page history.

Making the Constitution editable in a wiki sandbox may have been a fun experiment at some point, but this isn't a good place for it, especially because it's likely to be mistaken for the actual document. There have been very few edits to these pages since their import, so it's not like the experiment was very successful, either. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 04:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm okay with deleting it. I don't see it adding value, and it can certainly add unnecessary confusion. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 00:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I vote to delete, but pose the following question: What happens if a good-faith author (or one of their children) requests access to the document in the distant future? Does the author's contribution record contain enough information to retrieve a copy if somebody wants to see grandad's old "book"? --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 03:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure what you're asking here. If someone knows the old title of the page, they can ask a custodian to send them a copy (or view it themselves in the Internet Archive). If they don't, but they know the username of an author, a custodian can look up the page in that user's Special:DeletedContributions. Neither of those paths requires the page to still exist - and the archives of this discussion will be a reminder too. :) Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 08:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Omphalographer: Upon reflection, I agree: Deletion is easy to reverse. Aside: On the other hand, I have found it difficult to track something that was moved and then deleted. For that reason, deleting is better than moving into draft or user space (and then deleting.) I pose these questions because when I first joined Wikiversity, almost nothing was ever deleted. Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 13:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• move to draft namespace - this could have potential educational value. i could see custom writing a constitution or editing the us constitution being part of a hypothetical college course at a university. Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 20:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree. Draft space should be for resources which someone is working on with the intent of making them suitable for the main namespace - not a dumping ground for low-quality content. Most of these pages haven't been edited since 2010, and I can't imagine anything which would result in them being considered "complete" and moved out of draft space.

  In the abstract sense, discussing changes to the Constitution (and the process by which that happens!) could indeed be an interesting class exercise. However, this specific modified Constitution doesn't have any educational value - it's the process which is educational, not the results. A useful educational resource would be a lesson plan describing how a teacher could run such an exercise, not an uncontrolled (and largely unused) instance of that exercise on a wiki. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 01:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael Ten: Deletion is safer than moving to draft space because deleted pages can be recovered if you know the page names. Once you start moving to draft space or renaming pages, it is easy to lose track of those pagenames. I know because it happened to a calculation on a page I wrote, moved, and then deleted (the calculation was valid but the page was worthless.) To preserve the trail we just need to leave notes on the authors' talk pages that contain the page names. I would be happy to post those messages.

... While the authors' idea seemed intriguing, I found the resource useless. If you strongly disagree, you could write a short summary and critique of the teaching idea and post it on the projects main page. Next, copy all the subpage material (i.e. the "constitution") onto that main page. And finally, blank the entire "constitution" in one edit, leaving a permalink to it on the main page.

... Also, if we decide not to delete this project, then we should probably adopt the policy that only pages with the potential to do actual harm should be deleted. I personally see no great harm in that policy -- it essentially turns Wikiversity into that portion of the "world-wide-web" which is licensed under Creative Commons. However, the community rejected that approach several years ago, and would be certain to reject it again if it were proposed. Come to think of it, I would reject the proposal because it harms our reputation with the Wikipedia community. Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 02:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly object to that proposal as well. Wikiversity was launched with a specific mission: to create learning materials intended for use in educational programs, to host projects which support the creation of those materials, and to assist other Wikimedia projects as needed. The definition of "learning materials" may be a little fuzzy around the edges, but redefining the project as a host for any freely licensed content at all is out of the question - it would effectively be an abdication of the project's mission, and I can't imagine the Foundation would approve of that. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 05:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael Ten: You are in no way part of that fringe minority I alluded to (I briefly reviewed your contributions and they are impressive.) But I am preparing a draft of the message to be placed on the authors' talk pages because I am certain that Wikistution and it's subpages will be either deleted or significantly improved by someone like you in the near future. I am involved with this only because I am responsible for deleting pages, and because like you, I am concerned about deleting sincere and well thought out efforts. I would have approved the keeping of Wikistution if each page had the original text of the US constitution, followed by an invitation to improve the new wikified version. You are more than welcome to make those changes, but I advise you to first clear it with participants of this ongoing discussion. I have been involved with this deletion request page long enough to be 99.9% certain that the consensus will be to delete Wikistution. I am also convinced (with a bit less certainty) that the best way to preserve the legacy of this teaching project is a clean deletion that preserves the projects original names in mainspace. Take your time, Michael Ten: Even after Dave's almost inevitable call to delete Wikistution, the project will be very easy to revivie for you or anybody else who wishes to pursue this teaching project.-Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 08:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy vandegrift: You are welcome to make the call. No need to wait for me. I have other obligations at the moment, and for the foreseeable future. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently trying to create Template:Project removal to place on the talk pages of this project's authors. Further discussion of how best preserve the history of deleted projects that still have merit should take place at Template talk:Project removal. Meanwhile, the fate of Wikistution will remain under discussion here for a wee bit longer.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 16:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion (I think!)

I used my newly minted Template:Project removal on the talk pages of four primary editors: User talk:Norton~enwikiversity, User talk:Cromium, User talk:Keith1 ,User talk:EnzingerCK, and User_talk:Cas5nq. This solution to the legacy problem (i.e. giving authors access to their work) was a bit of a kludge, but might serve as a proof of principle on whether it is psychologically easier to delete projects if it is clear to all the un-deletion is a simple matter. I left a message to User:Atcovi, who also took a personal interest in this project. The more I look at the project, the more I like it ... but stand by my vote to delete because it does potential harm to readers who might mistake it for the US constitution and because the educational value lies in the process not the product (as already mentioned). I will give everyone a few days before I pull the trigger on a project with 41 subpages.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 20:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To facilitate subsequent undeletion, it might be necessary to list the subpages (which I did at the top of this discussion.) Given the large amount in this case is use {{cot}}...{{cob}}--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. I do not have time to try and develop that more at this time. I wish Wikimedia had a recycling Wiki or something... so pages like the one in question could be moved there for possible inclusion in this wiki or any other wiki. That is, all good faith contributions that are not a good fit for the wiki they were created on, could be moved there (like recycle.wikimedia.com or commons.wikimedia.com (like under a new text category) ... or txtcommons.wikimedia.org ... contentcommons.wikimedia.org ..... i hope my idea is conveyed correctly. Like, commons.wikimedia.org is for all sorts of media... pictures... videos.... why not have something similar but for text that are good faith creations under creative commons open license? please do with this page what seems most appropriate. i do feel that if there was a commons.wikimedia.org for all good faith content creations under creative commons license... that could offer multiple benefits. storage space is becoming exponentially less expensive. 4 to 8 terabyte hard drives are not maybe... $150 about? perhaps all good faith contributions could be utilized to train some sort of open source a.i. sort of like chatgpt? i support not deleting good faith contributions, and moving them somewhere like recycle.wikimedia.org or txtcommons.wikimedia.org. or move to user namespace; that seems decent. but please do whatever feels most correct/appropriate. please move my response elsewhere on the page here if appropriate or format indendations if helpful. limitless peace. Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 09:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New conclusion! My previous conclusion that it was best to delete and inform the authors of how to undelete was based on the false assumption that deleting was simpler than moving. When I went to delete the 41 pages, I was reminded that you can't automatically delete subpages (while moving X subpages is a simple two step process.) So, if there are no objections, I will pick an author, move the entire project into their userspace, and inform the other authors of its new location.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 20:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I object. We have a fairly clear consensus to delete this content. Moving it to userspace is not a resolution which was proposed or agreed to at any point in this discussion. It's not one which I believe is helpful here, either, as it fails to resolve the fundamental concerns that this content is easily confusable with an actual historical document, and that it is no longer being used.

If your concern is that deleting 41 pages takes too much time, I believe there are tools which can be used to automate this process. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 20:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since I already informed the authors of the pages deletion, I have no objection if you use those tools to delete this project'.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 20:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• See also: Category:Pages moved from mainspace and Template:Pagemove announcement

The discussion of deleting #Radiation astronomy/Lensings has been closed as deleted. But in that discussion, multiple editors hinted that the entire Radiation astronomy project might be a candidate for deletion. This project has so many subpages that it needs to be deleted by someone who can do a mass deletion (that also deletes subpages.) Situations like this are common on WV, and moving the project to userspace relieves us from the pressure to make a quick decision.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 00:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The project had well over 100 pages. Nevertheless, it could be moved by creating/moving it as three pages:

• User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy
• User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy1
• User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy2

There are a substantial number of pages associated with this topic which weren't subpages of "Radiation astronomy". I'm still in the process of cataloguing them, but a few examples are Cosmic circuits, Entities/Astronomy, Intensity astronomy/Quiz, Sources/Astronomy, and Wanderers/Quiz. Should I move these to Marshallsumter's user space as I discover them, or should they be handled separately?

A closely related question is what should be done with the (unreviewed) WikiJournal preprint WikiJournal Preprints/Cryometeors, which was part of this group of articles (cf. User:Marshallsumter/Radiation astronomy/Cryometeors). I've got an open question with the WikiJournal User Group to determine how that group handles abandoned preprints - but this article is likely to be unsuitable for publication anyway, as it's almost entirely composed of quotations. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 04:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Omphalographer: I just took care of Cosmic circuits, Entities/Astronomy, Intensity astronomy/Quiz, Sources/Astronomy, and Wanderers/Quiz. Personally, I make my choices based on an effort to minimize our effort. My primary reason for moving Radiation astronomy was that I can't mass delete (Bureaucrats do that.) In answer to your question:

1. Since Wikijournal is a valued "customer", lets let them respond before acting.
2. Use prod on any page that is not too hideous.
3. For obviously bad pages, go ahead and use {{delete}} if you want. I will delete if I agree and do something else if I have any doubts. Keep in mind that anything I move will get placed in [[:Category:Pages moved from mainspace]] so that we won't lose the link. No consensus has been reached regarding "moving" versus "deleting", and for that reason I want to limit how much "moving" I do until that gets sorted out. @Dave Braunschweig: step in if you have any objections or suggestions.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 04:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favor of the moves to user space. Large projects can be moved by bot, if necessary. We have long agreed that part of the Wikiversity:Mission (creation and use of free learning materials and activities) includes the learning opportunity for the creator, irrespective of any learning value for others. From my perspective, there is no question that Landmark Education was a learning opportunity for Abd, just as Radiation Astronomy was a learning opportunity for Marshallsumter. If the community does not see value for others in these resources, they can be moved to user space. They should not be deleted, as they are still supporting the Wikiversity mission, just as thousands of other User: space resources do. (The many engineering homework projects are examples.)

I'm not sure I see the advantage of Category:Pages moved from mainspace. The links aren't lost. If you visit Landmark Education, you can see where it went, and if you visit User:Abd/Landmark Education and select History, you can see where it came from. But the category also doesn't cause any problems if others find it helpful.

There are other resources similar to Radiation Astronomy that might also be moved. Rocks comes to mind. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem with moving these pages to user space is that many of them contain non-free media, which may only be used in the main namespace. This needs to be addressed, either by editing the pages to remove that media or deleting the pages.

Engineering homework pages are a copyright issue we need to consider separately. Many of the ones I've seen appear to be solving homework problems from non-freely licensed textbooks. I'm concerned that reproducing those problems, even with the solutions interspersed, may constitute a copyright violation. My understanding is that this is explicitly not fair use because it may diminish the market value for the textbook (and its associated solution manual, if it has one).

And I maintain that the Landmark Education pages were not, and were never, a "learning opportunity". It was a fairly clear instance of Abd using the project as a podium to defend an organization he had close personal ties to. I feel that it doesn't belong here, whether in user space or otherwise. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 18:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no objections, I would like to close this discussion as a decision to move to userspace, since that follows precedent. Discussions as to whether to change that precident might perhaps be discussed at Help talk:User page, since Help:User page is where newbies might go to learn what is allowed on userspace.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 01:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(list all 700+ of them)

These pages were all created around 2010, and were apparently intended to be an index of certain gene polymorphisms related to the human immune system. However, the project appears to have stalled shortly after creating a large set of stub pages - almost every page that I've looked at has been empty save for a dead link to the Immuno Polymorphism Database, and sometimes an image showing a geographical distribution. (Please let me know if I've missed some important content hiding among the stubs - there were too many for me to comprehensively review.)

Even if this project were active, I'm not convinced that it'd be a good fit for Wikiversity; it seems more like a database than a collection of writing. Given that the primary editor stopped editing shortly after creating these pages and nobody else seems to have picked it up, though, I see no purpose in keeping it here. If someone else wants to start a similar project (and can commit to seeing it through!), they'd probably be better off starting from scratch rather than trying to fix up these pages.

(To be clear, this is a request for bulk deletion. Please do not move these pages to userspace.)--AGREED!!! --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 06:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 05:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I second Omphalographer's motion to delete--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 06:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete -- I've never understood the purpose or benefit of these pages. It would seem that a site dedicated to genetics would have a better presentation of the content and could be linked as an alternative. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Will delete (Check deletion with Special:PrefixIndex/Genetics/Human Leukocyte Antigen)I Can't delete:Too many subpages--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 19:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Y Done Special:PrefixIndex/Genetics/Human Leukocyte Antigen Closing as task completed. --02:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

This seems to be so underdeveloped as to be useless. The page contains:

• Three discussion questions. (No statement, just questions.)
• Four links to Wikipedia articles for reading.
• Three See alsos.
• Two external links.

I learned not a single sentence or fact from the page. I am better served by W:Organic farming and if I want to read more, there is W:Category:Organic farming. Thus, this seems sub-stubby to me; there is not a minimum useful content, I would say. Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 18:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As you've noted, there is no meaningful content here, just a collection of links to tangentially related content. (And as far as the external links are concerned, the first one is dead, and the second is to a site that's mostly focused on COVID denialism, so there isn't much value in those either.)

For what it's worth, there are a fair number of other underdeveloped resources on Wikiversity about sustainability-related topics, many of which were created early in the site's development. However, most of the effort seems to have gone into creating project infrastructure, like overviews, tables of contents, and portals, rather than into actually creating substantial learning material. Some further cleanup is probably warranted. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 21:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep: The resource is sufficiently advanced that it does not qualify for WV:SPEEDY. It could be marked as WV:PROD. But if I was reviewing the proposed deletions, I would be just as likely to remove the proposal as I would to delete the resource. Based on the concerns noted above, a better alternative would be to make it a subpage of Sustainability. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the benefit of making this a subpage: the title is clear and unambiguous as is and adding a "Sustainability" prefix does not improve anything, to my mind. Making it a subpage does not alleviate any concerns with sub-stubby content. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 15:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not within the scope of speedy deletion, but that's why we're discussing it here. Keep in mind that having a lot of pages on the wiki with no substantial content makes actual content harder to find. Imagine you're an educator looking for information you could use to build a lesson plan, for example - how would you feel when you encountered this page? Personally, I'd feel frustrated. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 18:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am an educator, and have more than 25 years of online teaching and learning experience and a graduate certificate in online learning. Pages like this are a starting point. I've worked with students to create entire courses from content like this. See Applied Programming for an example, currently a Google #2 resource for the subject. Everything has to start somewhere. Removing Organic agriculture does not make Wikiversity better. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 21:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an educator; I am an empirically minded person. The page was created on 10 March 2007‎ and since then, it did not advance. I think removing sub-stubs does make Wikiversity better since it reduces the overall impression (that I get) that a randomly picked Wikiversity page is worthless. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 21:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to subpage of Sustainability The Sustainability resource is basically a collection of stubs. Stubs are an invitation for students to act. If we don't like Sustainability in mainspace we have three choices:

1. Place announcements on all stubs to strongly encourage contributions (with the understanding that even incompetent contributing is learning)
2. Move all such resources into draftspace with an incoming mainpage page that encourages teachers/students to "learn by doing" as they attempt to make a useful teaching resource.
3. Delete all "weak" resources (such as Sustainability) and build a new Wikiversity from scratch. (see my comment below at Sustainability/Salt Lake)--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 20:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I distinguish stubs from sub-stubs. Stubs contain something like "minimum useful content". They can consist of a single paragraph, but there must be something of value in that paragraph. The reader has to learn something. A page that only declares that there will be content but provides no content proper is in my view a sub-stub. I have created multiple fairly small debate pages and I see them as useful content, no matter how small. A page does not need to be long, but there has to be some meat there. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 21:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan Polansky: Your point about random pages is valid. But I just clicked "Random" 50 times and never saw a subpage. For that reason, stub-stubs need to be subpages. Organic agriculture needs to be a subpage, and I will move it now.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 22:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity Random is configured to Special:RandomRootpage. It will never show subpages. This allows us to focus our quality efforts on landing pages and provide more flexibility to editors developing project subpages. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 03:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no objections, I would like to close this discussion with a decision to keep in mainspace--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 01:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no content. Thus, sub-stub worth deleting. Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 18:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan Polansky: This is not worthy of discussion. Please use either WV:SPEEDY or WV:PROD for these types of deletions. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted and then undeleted it, but see my comment below at Sustainability/Salt Lake (edited) --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 22:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no objections, I would like to close this discussion with a decision to keep in mainspace--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 01:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the rationale for keeping? I checked Wikiversity:Stubs, a non-policy, and it says 'If no new content (aside from templates, categorization, etc.) is added to a stub after one month, it should be merged into the "stub cabinet" by a custodian.' This seem to have never been implemented, though. I checked Wikiversity:Deletions and it does not find keywords "stub" or "minimum". Thus, my intuitive criterion of "stub" and "sub-stub", inspired by Wikipedia, is not based on policy. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 18:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the "stub cabinet" content from Wikiversity:Stubs. It described a process which was clearly never implemented in any form. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 19:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dave Braunschweig: I am OK with deleting. Are you OK with deleting? If I delete, I assume you want me to go ahead and delete the other "sub-stub" --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 21:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see no meaningful content. There are 4 paragraphs setting up the intent of the page, but no content proper. Created in 2008‎ as a location for a collaborative project, but that did not materialize, it seems. Someone may want to go through Category:Sustainability and delete all obviously sub-stubby content without dedicated process. Alternatively, I could create a multi-item nomination, based on my assessment of what I think to be sub-stubby. (The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dan Polansky (talk • contribs) 20 December 2022)

@Dan Polansky: This doesn't require discussion. Please use {{Delete}} or {{Prod}}. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan Polansky, Dave Braunschweig, and Omphalographer: I am thrilled at the rapid pace of this cleanup effort, and I am honored to be working with competent people like you three (and a few others). But I just deleted two subpages of Sustainability because I thought I saw a consensus at those sections. Then I went to a prior discussion at Organic agriculture where there was no consensus, but liked Dave's suggestion that we move another stub into a subpage of Sustainability...only to later realize that I deleted the sister subpages. So ... We obviously need to talk and establish guidelines. I assure you that I am flexible. I think Dave will assure you that I routinely vote one way, trying to be concise with my arguments, and then switch my vote to get a consensus. But without a clear consensus and plan, we need to slow down this cleanup.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 20:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no objections, I would like to close this discussion with a decision to keep in mainspace--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 01:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be pretty absurd to me. The first sentence: "This page was started to provide a way for people to collaborate on sustainability projects in a specific area: Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, and the Salt Lake valley." And that's about what the page is: placeholder for potential collaboration that never took place, with no content. We can equally well create Sustainability/London and Sustainability/New York, use the same text, and just change the location name. Not a good idea, IMHO. And since Dave did not voice any objection to deletion above (he voiced objection to using bureaucratic process), we might as well have a consensus for deletion? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 18:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dave Braunschweig: I am OK with deleting. I assume you suggestion that {{Delete}} or {{Prod}} should have been used implies that you "vote" to delete. Right? --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 21:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the efforts of both Dan Polansky and Omphalographer to improve Wikiversity, they also need to respect our longstanding Wikiversity culture. There is nothing about either of these pages that would or should lead to a deletion discussion. Users are welcome to tag content with either WV:SPEEDY or WV:PROD as they see fit. At Wikiversity, we don't waste each other's time forcing discussions on content that isn't disruptive or controversial.

I don't support deletion based on this discussion. You and I were both comfortable leaving these subpages alone, as is our custom. The appropriate approach would be {{prod}}, particularly for Salt Lake. Activities could be SPEEDY based on no educational objectives. But, again, these are subpages. These aren't high priorities for cleanup work, because no one sees them.

A more effective approach would be to focus on Wikiversity:Statistics and the top 1,000 pages. It's likely that 90% of Wikiversity page views are covered by these 1,000 pages, and 90% of that is covered by the first 100. That's where we need a focus on quality. Subpages that get fewer than 50 views a year aren't worth this investment of our valuable time.

In terms of operational policy, any deletion requests that qualify as either speedy or prod should be administratively closed with the pages in question tagged appropriately.

Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 05:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have long questioned the validity of Draft:Quasi-minimal prime, however, I didn't have the time or interest in researching it further. However, it has been pointed out that much of this work has been created or altered by an LTA and is of questionable quality. Further, a quick Internet search shows no other significant academic work using the subject of "quasi-minimal prime". I'd like to see this deleted immediately vs. waiting for PROD. Anyone opposed? -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:41, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be neutral on the topic in isolation -- it's a somewhat silly bit of original research in discrete math, but it isn't obviously inaccurate or misleading either -- but the user's history of cross-wiki abuse and unwillingness/inability to communicate with other editors pushes it over the fence into delete territory for me. (And it looks as though that's already happened, anyway.) Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 22:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done I deleted it after the IP user removed a {{prod}} template that I had placed on the top page. This removal of the prod occurred after one or two attempts to communicate with this person. -- Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 00:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]