From Wikiversity

Shortcut: WV:RFD

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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] Useful resources

Deletion Log request for deletion archives Proposed deletion policy - proposed, so not binding. Template:Deletion request - this is the template used on pages listed here

[edit] How to list a page here

Add {{Deletion request}} or {{dr}} to the image, category or article page. Add a new section to the end of this page using the follow format: == [[Page title]] == reasons why this page ought to be deleted --~~~~

Administering Wikiversity Action required The open task template Maintenance Requests for deletion Requests for speedy deletion Copyright violations Requests for custodian action Notices for custodians Templates Introduction to templates Guide to templates Welcome templates Page flag templates Navigation templates Admin templates Template taskforce Barnstars Userboxes Development Developing Wikiversity Activity bars Wikiversity logos Service community Metadata MediaWiki Project MediaWiki Technical needs Reference Policies Custodians Custodianship (policy) How to be a Wikimedia sysop Mission Managing vandalism MediaWiki Handbook Parser functions Logs Bots Consensus Statistics Events and news Announcements Wikimania

Contents 1 Decision process 2 Useful resources 3 How to list a page here 4 Undeletion requests 5 Deletion requests 5.1 100¢, 2 5.2 Miley Cyrus 5.3 Image:KJpic.jpg and Image:Vreemdekikker.jpg 5.4 Attack pages 5.4.1 User:Centaur of attention 5.4.2 place link to attack page 2 here 5.5 Topic:Moulton Vs. Centaur of attention 5.6 Japanese poetry copyvio 5.7 Wikipedia Ethics/Case Studies1 5.8 Wikipedia Ethics/Case Studies2 5.9 Wikipedia Ethics/Case Studies/Biographies of Living People 5.10 Wikipedia Ethics/Case Studies/Concordances, Dossiers, Scathing Indictments, and Ethics 5.11 Introduction to HTML 5.12 Category:Earth Stations 5.13 Topic:Ocean engineering and naval architecture 5.14 School:Reality research 5.15 Abaaya 5.16 Accountta 5.17 Abraham Lincoln 5.18 America's First Five Presidents: 1789 to 1828 5.19 American Civil War 5.20 Alexender 5.21 Anaximander 5.22 Anaximenes 5.23 Arizona 5.24 Are you paranoid? 5.25 Autopoiesis 5.26 Axis and Allies 5.27 Abd Aziz bin Harjin

[edit] 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...

[edit] Deletion requests

[edit] 100¢, 2

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)

[edit] Miley Cyrus

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)

• 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)

• 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)

[edit] Image:KJpic.jpg and Image:Vreemdekikker.jpg

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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] User:Centaur of attention

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)

[edit] place link to attack page 2 here

[edit] Topic:Moulton Vs. Centaur of attention

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)

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)

Delete A learning project about users is not an approriate topic of study. Issues like this should be done within the scope of WV:CR or other community pages. The page itself is little more than an outline, and never got past the planning stage, so there is really not much to learn from. --mikeu ^talk 12:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese poetry copyvio

[edit] Wikipedia Ethics/Case Studies1

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)

 Comment I'd like to see Case Studies1 and Case Studies2 merged, or the parts of CaseStudies2 merged with the related subpages. Case Studies1 should probably be kept around as a summery of the various case studies that are taking place with links to each case study. The hypotheticals could be useful to either help summarize each case or used to help improve each case. --darklama 14:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

 Comment Most of what you suggested was already done on Wikipedia_Ethics/Case_Studies. The edit wars prevented them from being merged at least in some stable fashion. If you look through the DPL list, you'll notice the subpages they were split into. Consider this edit and you can see the "merged" and "alternate" style you suggest has been tried. Dzonatas 15:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is that both their edit histories should be merged as well, rather than just incorporated both page's content and redirect pages. That way the edit histories are preserved, but the pages aren't needed. I think its worth trying again. I believe it should be possible to incorporate ideas from Case Studies 1, Case Studies 2 and Case Studies together on one page, since the focus of the page should probably now be about what rules should be followed for case studies and a brief summery of each case with a link to each case. I believe it also important to require contributors to engage in discussion and dispute resolution and discourage forking in this project, and require any conflicting views concerning the same case study to be included on the same page rather than separate pages. --darklama 16:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

 Comment I think Privatemusings did a good job with his case study on this page, so I would recommend keeping and merging it with other useful case studies, if that hasn't already been done. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I see he has moved his here: User:Privatemusings/EthicsSandbox/casestudy. I hope he votes in DR to help confirm. Dzonatas 17:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Ethics/Case Studies2

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)

• Arguments:

Merge Since both resources are the relatively the same any material added to Case2 should in my view be merge together - since this seems to be a duplicate page. Dark Mage 10:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Ethics/Case Studies/Biographies of Living People

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)

Keep I think this page just needs expansion or alternatively could be renamed to Wikipedia Ethics/Case Studies/Rosalind Picard and the minor parts not related to Rosalind Picard removed. --darklama 14:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

 Comment Moulton has placed an older version on his userspace. Dzonatas 01:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep This is a valid topic for Wikipedia studies. I believe the original motivation for deleting this page came from a Wikipedian who does not want his past violations of Wikipedia policy to be discussed. Wikiversity should never submit to censorship aimed at trying to prevent Wikimedians from studying and correcting problems in WMF projects. --JWSchmidt 14:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Ethics/Case Studies/Concordances, Dossiers, Scathing Indictments, and Ethics

The 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. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 07:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

questions and comments. "just Moulton arguing his position" <-- I think there were more contributors to this content than just Moulton. Even if it were just Moulton, why is that a reason for deletion? "It has none of the features of a case study" <-- I dispute this claim. Wikiversity participants are exploring how to study wikis. If there is some technical problem of deficiency in the page, then the solution is editing, not deletion. "completely outside the scope of Wikiversity" <-- I do not agree. The issues raised on the page are valid topics for study within the general area of "Wikipedia studies". --JWSchmidt 14:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction to HTML

[edit] Category:Earth Stations

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)

Oppose; it's a part of Game Design. I would, however, support moving them to be sub-pages of that particular project. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 08:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

 Comment The pages in this category already are subpages of Earth Station. I think this nom is for deletion of the Category only, and not the pages in it. In any case there is no template on pages like Earth Station/Alpha at this time, so I don't see them being considered for deletion. I would suggest that if we keep the cat it should be renamed to Category:Fictional Earth Stations, or something along those lines. It is only my guess, but that seems to be what the original nom was for... --mikeu ^talk 17:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not just soft-redirect it, then? The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 02:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems entirely sensible to me that the subpages of Earth Station would be located in Category:Earth Station. Mikeu's suggestion would be fine too. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Topic:Ocean engineering and naval architecture

[edit] School:Reality research

This is an old issue from 2007. School:Reality research had a template about a copyight violation, but an anon placed Template:Hangon on the School talk:Reality research page and removed the template before anyone could review it. Please take a look. --mikeu ^talk 19:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abaaya

Appears to be intended as an encyclopedia article. Should either be transwikied to w:Abaaya, where it will probably get deleted, or it should be deleted. --The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 11:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I would think that belongs at Wiktionary instead. There is currently not a page for wikt:Abaaya. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Accountta

Orphaned page being used to provide a definition. --The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 11:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

delete - it is not even a valid word. --mikeu ^talk 00:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Any word, which is used and understood, may be "valid". That does not, however, justify its inclusion here. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 07:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abraham Lincoln

C&P'ed biography. --The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 11:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

keep. I agree with the discussion on the talk page. This looks like a good faith effort to start a page that is linked to by other Wikiversity pages and which is a valid topic for Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 15:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with the discussion on the talk page. That has nothing to do with whether or not this page should be deleted. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 15:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the work of US Federal employees is in the public domain. However, the page is still plagiarism. This could be a great topic to cover, but the current content needs to be at least sourced appropriately. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep and remove any copyright violations. Emesee 22:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

There are currently no "copyright violations", but the entire page is currently plagiarized (unless the link at the bottom could be considered proper attribution). The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 07:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] America's First Five Presidents: 1789 to 1828

created and abandoned by creator over half a year ago --The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 11:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

keep. This looks like the start of a valid learning resource. I see no valid reason for deletion. --JWSchmidt 15:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a valid learning resource was started at The US Presidents. Given the way that resource is moving forward, I seriously doubt this one, having been abandoned, will ever take off. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 15:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep as per other/s. Certainly we can direct users to more well develop resources more vigorously than to less developed resources. Emesee 07:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] American Civil War

created over a year ago with only a link to Wikipedia, and then abandoned --The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 11:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

keep. This page is part of a start towards developing Wikiversity learning resources about a valid topic. No valid reason provided for deletion. --JWSchmidt 15:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep as per other/s. Emesee 07:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alexender

created and abandoned over half a year ago with minimal content (all encyclopedic). Also misspelled. --The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 11:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anaximander

appears to be intended as a biography --The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 12:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

keep This page is part of a planned unit on the topic, "From Natural Philosophy to Natural History". No valid reason for deletion. --JWSchmidt 15:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep as per other/s. Emesee 22:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anaximenes

appears to be intended as a biography --The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 12:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

keep. Same as for "Anaximander", above. --JWSchmidt 15:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep as per other/s. Emesee 22:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arizona

created as a test edit and then abandoned --The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 12:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

keep. No valid reason to delete the page. The page is linked to from another Wikiversity page and is a valid topic for Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 15:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I have linked that map to Wikipedia since that will be more useful. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep as per others. Emesee 07:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Are you paranoid?

created without content and then abandoned over a year ago --The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 12:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Autopoiesis

appears to be linkspam --The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 12:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

keep. A valid biology topic for Wikiversity. Erkan's approach is correct, not page deletion. --JWSchmidt 15:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep as per other/s. Emesee 22:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Legitimate topic of study - w:Autopoiesis. Wikis, actually, might be described as autopoiesic. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Axis and Allies

appears to have been intended (and then abandoned) as an encylcopedic article --The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 12:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

keep. I think the page was intended to be a resource about the use of simulation games for learning about military history. Wikiversity participants should be allowed to expand on this concept. --JWSchmidt 16:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Since it was a copy-paste from Wikipedia, and then an external link to the article, I think Jade Knight's analysis is absolutely correct. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep as per other/s. Emesee 22:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abd Aziz bin Harjin

Appears to be a brief CV in the malay language. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 13:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)