Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion/Archives/3

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1. Category:Fluids

• This was a subcategory in the School of Medicine but I don't think it is big enough to be considered as a category. In fact, it is probably a topic that medical teaching can cover in one lesson on a namespace page.

Done --mikeu ^talk 03:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

2. Category: Disease, Category:Diseases and Category:Medical conditions

• These categories are unnecessary because any disease or condition can be classified in the Category:Medicine subcategories. These three categories would eventually be very difficult to manage.

Donek (talk) - Go raibh mile maith agaibh 18:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think it is difficult to manage the Diseases category? I think diseases could be defined quite easily. --Gbaor 05:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I have had a long think and it should be kept. The other two should be deleted or merged. Fluids should definitely be deleted. Donek (talk) - Go raibh mile maith agaibh 01:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there are enough pages in the main namespace that could be put in some of those categories, that if they were populated with the pages that could be categorized as such, they would be kept. Maybe merge disease and diseases though... Emesee 02:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I merged Category: Disease to Category: Diseases with {{category redirect}} and tried to repopulate it. --Gbaor 05:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Reason 1 (as per w:User:Freshacconci at [1]: "This article has been created by the artist herself. Her attempts at creating and recreating this article under various sockpuppets at Wikipedia has resulted in her being blocked and the article being salted. She is a working artist but is not notable, and there are no reliable third-part references. All existing references indicate a working artist, but not a notable one." Reason 2: in addition, Wikiversity is not Wikipedia's waste-bin and this is just an unwanted encyclopedia article. Reason 3: User:JWSchmidt removed the good-faith speedy delete tag proposed by another user and did not put this to the vote; however if a good-faith speedy delete recommendation is refused, it should be replaced with a vote as a matter of principle, even if the consensus is then to keep. Doubtless anti-deletionist elements will oppose this nomination and treat it as a cause celebre, but as Terry Ananny is a known case of a vanity-promoting exploiter of Wikimedia projects, it will be interesting to see the outcome of this vote. --McCormack 04:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The "the good-faith speedy delete tag" provided no reason for page deletion, just the "canned" excuse used at Wikipedia. This is not Wikipedia. "We deleted this at Wikipedia" is not a reason for deleting content from Wikiversity. Every contribution to Wikiversity must be evaluated on its merits as a learning resource. I see no evidence that McCormack has taken this into account before rushing to delete. It must be another slow day for deletionists. --JWSchmidt 04:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There most certainly was a reason left. I left a lengthy reason talking about cross-wiki spam and author self promotion. If you choose not to read it then that is your fault. But to say there wasn't one left is incorrect. -Djsasso 05:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Read what I wrote and please do not expect Wikipedia's canned excuses for deletionism to be counted as "reason" at this wiki. --JWSchmidt 05:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

How is writing out an explanation a "canned" response. A canned excuse would just be to copy and paste a common reason. So just to make sure we are clear on this. Anyone can have an article about anyone on here? Is that what you are saying? No matter how trivial? If that is so I might as well make an article about myself. -Djsasso 05:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Anyone can have an article about anyone on here? Is that what you are saying? No matter how trivial? If that is so I might as well make an article about myself." OK, have fun with it. I guess the view of what the mission of Wikiversity should be is just different. WV is e.g. about learning (communities). And here everybody has a different view/definition what "learning" is. Some have a broader definition, some less broad. Regarding which definition/view one has, you must understand people here at Wikiversity. E.g. learning for some means a mental change and that then can mean: things that help to create a mental change are ok. When seeing wikis not as static but dynamic and knowing/believing in the revertability of edits the learning experience increases. I see WV as a place where people can learn personally in their development - every action one does influences one's life, the view on things. This "learning" certainly takes also place at other places but e.g. since the other Wikimedia projects have a limited scope - e.g. WP creates mainly encyclopedia articles, WB creates wikibooks - they perhaps are not always suitable for all aspects of learning. I also believe that when WV has produced "products" that these should be exported to other Wikimedia projects - when they fit the policies there. People create the products. I want primarily people to interact here, if then they during that create products: perfect. But hey, that is just my view and WV has many participants and they see WV surely different. copy + paste

Djsasso is correct - a reason clearly was given. There is no issue here. Please argue about real issues rather than creating arguments ex nihilo. --McCormack 05:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any "good" reasons given by anyone so far as to why this should be deleted (mostly just as JW said "canned" responses) ... but I also don't see any attempt so far by either the original author or other Wikiversity participants to make this a worthy educational resource. There was no categorization to associate the resource with art history say, or reformatting to present any critical questioning of the artists aesthetics, or value as an artist and at this point it would appear as has already been raised just a failed Wikipedia article. Unless the article is modified in a way to better suit Wikiversitys mission I'd probably vote for deletion should a vote come up. Countrymike 08:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to second what Countrymike said. The Jade Knight 12:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose delete How is this page educational? Does it teach? One might ask the same question of paintings hanging in the National Gallery of Canada. Do they instruct are they educational, what are their purpose, why does society value their creation, why were they selected? Do they inspire? If they do inspire, what is achieved by that inspiration. Could it be an enrichment of some sort for the viewer? What if we had no art or music of any kind in our society, do you think we would be better off? What are your goals and missions at Wikiversity? It seems ridiculous that you would all go to so much trouble to remove an article from Wikiversity about a simple artist who has painted 1150 paintings (all in collection) or so over the course of their career, has had paintings in prominent collections such as Canada Mortgage and Housing ( 48 x 96 in. ), past Prime Minister's of Canada and work featured on UNICEF cards, Children's Wish Foundation of Canada cards, Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation (Cards for the Cure), Cornerstone 52 Foundation greeting cards, Canada Save the Children cards and others all of which benefit mankind greatly, especially children. keep(The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.54.10.141 (talk • contribs) .)

First, "support" means "delete" in the context of this page (pay attention, eh?). Second, they only count the votes of registered users, and frequently only those who have a history of contributing to Wikiversity. If you want your vote here to count, please register an account an get involved. I am sorry that this biography was not kept at Wikipedia, but Wikiversity is not an encyclopedia. "Notability" is simply not criteria for inclusion here. You might be interested, however, in checking out Wikiversity:Mission. Hope it helps. The Jade Knight 16:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: This is probably the artist herself. She has been increasingly disruptive about her article, including having two accounts on Wikipedia (indef blocked), removing the AFD tag on the discussion on her Wikipedia article. Recently she has repeatedly blanked the deletion discussion over on the Simple English Wikipedia to the point where Cassandra had to semi the page. Just an FYI, and I will not be voting in this. Hbdragon88 15:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Support delete I would have said transwiki to en-wikipedia, but they don't want it. This is not a learning resource, it's an encyclopedia article. It's also promotional spam. Salmon of Doubt 16:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I too would have said Transwiki; I personally think it's notable as an encyclopedia article. But, as you point out, that's not an option. The Jade Knight 16:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral It's more of a encyclopedic entry now, but I wonder if there is a way to change it to a learning resource. There is no obvious reason to quickly delete the page. If it can not be made into a learning resource, then that would be a reason to delete it at some point. An IP user created the page, so it will be hard to tell if the original author is willing or unwilling to tune the page to the purpose of Wikiversity. Instead of a speedy delete tag, I suggest a tag that marks, dates, and categorizes the entry as an encyclopedic entry. If after a period of time the article hasn't changed or has gone unchallenged since the tag has been placed and dated, then speedy delete it. Let the original author be able to request restoration of the article after deletion with the condition the requester has to change it to a learning resource. Dzonatas 16:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

•  Comment -- If this person was actually contributing here, it would be a fine userpage. Otherwise not appropriate for the main namespace for all the reasons above. --SB_Johnny ^talk 11:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Case suspended or provisionally closed

An anonymous user (probably the artist) made many substantial changes to this page turning it into an educational resource. It is now known as Acrylic Painting Development Ideas. I've removed the biographical material and suggested to the author that she create a user account and put the biographical material on her user page. Doubtless this resource could be further developed, but it is now well above the level where it could be proposed for deletion. I therefore suggest that we suspend this vote/discussion. I think this is a very successful outcome for a deletion proposal - i.e. the most successful outcome a deletion proposal can ever lead to is the transformation of a resource into something worth keeping. One caveat: the experiences of page blanking, semi-protection and other misdeeds on other projects suggests we should keep this thread here for a while and keep the page under observation. --McCormack 04:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the redirect as it appears to be unnecessary at this point. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

REASON <Page is misspelled, contains only one line which contains no non-enclypedic learning content, and is otherwise unhelpful. If someone wants to start an article on the History of Haiti, they're welcome to, but this should be cleared to facilitate that.> -- The Jade Knight 10:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• ARGUMENTS -
  • I'd suggest moving to correct name (keeps the history), then for a while perhaps leave the redirect until satisfied that main contributors are aware of the new location, then eventually delete the mispelled redirect page. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep: I've moved the page to correct the spelling. The title is sufficiently generic that someone might actually develop it further (within the next 20 years or so...) --McCormack 12:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Support deletion no posibility of becoming an effective learning resource. Salmon of Doubt 12:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral -- How is a spelling mistake in an article (Learning Resource) qualify for deletion anyway - have you contacted the author about this he/she may want to improve it. Dark Mage 17:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• See the related discussion at Wikiversity:Notices for custodians#Landan. --JWSchmidt 01:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - the name is now fine. The unsourced fact may be of interest to some, and apparently, someone thought it was important enough to allow it to have its own page, opposed to potentially being muted by additional information in a longer article. Maybe we could somehow tweak the welcome and expand template to let people know that for pages that do have quite little content, that they are more than welcome to start fresh, or move/fork existing content to make way for their vision of the page. Emesee 01:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Question Could this page simply be moved to "History of Haiti"? Ottava Rima (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I missed the above where it stated that it was. I contacted the creator of the page in order to have them see this. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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) 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)

• 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 [2]. 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)

• 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: [[[Wikipedia_Ethics/Suggested_essays]]]. 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 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. --darklama 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. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 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)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• This page is an ancient relic from a time when it looked like a good idea. It's unlikely this page will ever be developed, and it might encourage silliness. Short of deleting it, we might also tag it as "historical". --McCormack 09:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"might encourage silliness" <-- I have a strong conviction that play is an important part of how humans learn. I do not accept that "might encourage silliness" is a valid reason to delete something from Wikiversity. In any case, the page was created for a serious purpose. At many places of learning, students get together to share strategies for learning. It is constructive to have a place where students can take note of their learning needs and take action to help each other. In a wiki, this kind of behavior is widely distributed, but eventually there will be a Portal:Students that functions as a directory for Wikiversity pages that are of particular interest to students. Creating needed portal pages is one of the things I do, and I request that this page not be marked "historical" until I have the chance to start Portal:Students. --JWS 15:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's probably unlikely that this page would have been developed if it hadn't annoyed someone, who then brought it to wider attention ;-), so I both thank McCormack, and agree with JWS's proposal to turn it into something useful like a Students' Portal. However, I think a students' union is not just pages which would be of interest to students, but also would be a way for students to socialise and discuss goals, interests, experiences etc. Does that correspond with your vision for Portal:Students? Cormaggio ^talk 19:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

When we originally identified students, teachers, and researchers as types of people who we would try to make feel welcome at Wikiversity, even before the launch of Wikiversity, I started making pages for these kinds of participants. While I like the idea of trying to blur the lines between conventional categories such as "student" and "learner" and "teacher" at Wikiversity, I think there will always be participants who come here and identify themselves as students. I hope such participants find many ways to socialize and discuss their goals, interests, experiences. I originally wanted a central location for coordination of such activities. Now that we have the portal namespace, I think it makes sense to have portal page play this role. I got around to making Portal:Research relatively early because we were tasked with establishing research policy. --JWSchmidt 21:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep - I think this could potentially be developed further. --Remi 02:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

merge with Portal:Participants - seems to be a duplication and if we consolidate this material it is less confusing for newcomers about where to participate. Having too many pages that attempt the same thing dilutes efforts to develop these pages. --mikeu ^talk 17:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep - some students need a certain page still like an anchor - especially when they are not used to wiki. Is there no other page/learning resource devoted so far to this "group" ? It could be linked now or later always from the Portal:Participants. ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 17:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep Give it time, already user's have begun editing and altering the article - we could even have it as a portal linking to some of the important articles or directories which some students may find helpful or interesting. Dark Mage 17:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further thoughts

Since tagging this with delete about six months back, I've had a portal project in the back of my head for about 3 or 4 months now. The idea was to beef up this page into a proper portal with a lot of useful content instead, as per the above suggestions. However I never had time to do this - so much other editing. As of 1st September 2008, User:JWSchmidt has posted a lot of material on the page about me (not on the talk page; on the page itself) which is probably intended to be offensive and provocative. I would appreciate it if any custodian or non-custodian would undo User:JWSchmidt's edits. Many thanks in advance to whomever does this. --McCormack 17:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that things written at begin were too personalizing. I have edited it to make it less personal. Is this ok for you already ? If not, how about writing to the user's talk page, so there is no excuse of not seeing your comment here. Another way would be to add a second project of the month (the topic could be perhaps the actual "Student Study Project of the Month"). There are more ways, I hope that both editors soon realize what is important. ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 18:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Closing the discussion

The consensus has long been overwhelmingly for "keep" as per User:Cormaggio, User:Remi, User:Mu301 and others. As Cormaggio pointed out a long time ago, it was precisely by listing the page here that ideas grew about what to do with the page. It is a shame that User:JWSchmidt personalised the issue, devalued the page with his edits and then linked the page directly from the main page (while still tagged for deletion) just to highlight his personal attacks. The page needs to be wound back to an earlier version, the deletion tag removed as per consensus, and then some sensible edits added. Two users suggested merging with Portal:Participants. Perhaps temporarily redirect there. --McCormack 20:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Student Union Portal

Due to a lot of discussions taking place about the Student Union page which a lot users thought it may be best to create it as a portal - however other users have thought about doing one - though I went ahead and started one of which both the layout and text from the old Student Union page is now located at Portal:Student Union if others agree this portal could be further improved, even I could add certain tasks or details in the Portal - I hope this may be useful for both Wikiversity and the community - including having the old Student Union page to be redirected to the new one. Dark Mage 20:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

 Comment Consensus to keep, and nominator considers the discussion closed. --mikeu ^talk 16:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

REASON A stub with Wikipedia links (some of them are broken), nothing links to it. Unneeded. -- Gbaor 13:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I added the correct stub template and category to it. I also found another "interesting" article - Chelsea. Maybe they will be useful for Sports and Hobbies school, but at this stage I have serious doubts about them. --Gbaor 13:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I echo your doubts - there could be educational material on Wikiversity which deals with a specific sports team, but it would have to have a clearly educational focus which even the more advanced page doesn't have. Seems written for Wikipedia. However, I think it would be courteous to at least contact User:Student_Galaxy, and have him reply, before taking any action. Cormaggio ^talk 18:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Student_Galaxy is on a long wikibreak. Should we go ahead with the delete, and just leave a message? --mikeu ^talk 14:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I second Cormaggio. If the creator has thoughts on the matter, I would like to know how the creator sees this fitting in with Wikiversity's scope/mission. Yet after a certain period, if we cannot figure this out for ourselves and the creator cannot be contacted, perhaps it would be best to keep it as restorable in the deletion log. --Remi 18:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just revisited the page and seen: "(T)he main question this page comes to find out is; Would people have ever heard of Sunderland if it wasn't for the football team?" It seems that this question is a very valid topic of study - though I might broaden it to something like "the cultural importance of football teams to their geographical location". Or perhaps - to keep it simple - "Football and culture". Cormaggio ^talk 12:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete per WV:NOT, Wikiversity is not a duplication of other Wikimedia projects, the content of this page seems to be simple an encyclopaedic entry. Whether people would have heard of Sunderland if it wasn't for the football club seems to be a very minor element of the article which isn't developed whatsoever. Adambro 23:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete unless page creator has a suggestion for making it educational. BTW, WV:NOT is NOT policy. The Jade Knight 12:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

 Comment I change the DR tag to a speedy delete since this is an encyclopedic entry and there is developed content at w:en:Sunderland A.F.C. Dzonatas 16:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Done Sunderland A.F.C. has been deleted. --mikeu ^talk 11:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chelsea

FYI - Tagged for speedy deletion per #Sunderland A.F.C. discussion. --mikeu ^talk 22:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

 Comment Included this page in archive box to keep discussion together. Dzonatas 16:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

REASON The field of study as presented does not seem to exist. -- Remi 00:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• ARGUMENTS -

Oppose - See w:Theistic Satanism and the refs there. That article has some OR tags, but that should not prevent exploration of the topic on WV given that we encourage research. The page here seems to be a start at a serious attempt to explore the topic. --mikeu ^talk 01:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - if this page is kept, it should be merged with Topic:Traditional Satanism Studies because the two seem to cover the exact same material. --mikeu ^talk 02:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Note Topic:Traditional Satanism Studies now redirects to Topic:Theistic Satanism studies --mikeu ^talk 14:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Support. This is a very difficult call. I've thought a lot about this one. The fact that a field does not exist is not a sufficient reason to disallow it. Looking at the bigger picture, I've noticed a disproportionately high usage of Wikiversity by fringe religious sects for advocating themselves - sometimes in pseudo-academic clothing, sometimes less obviously disguised. These sects would not pass the "does it make WV a better place" test (they give WV a dubious reputation as a refuge for religious sects that can't get onto WP), and probably we need to derive a new policy principle regarding the educational value of non-historical (i.e. current) fringe religious groups. Otherwise every self-proclaimed guru will have a pseudo-study group here. It's true that there is plenty of fringe science out there, but the religious sects are especially dangerous when it comes to education. On the whole I'm in favour of creating a religious studies policy which raises the bar against many of these groups. --McCormack 04:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - The study of new religious movements is a valid area of academic study. [5] The stub that we are discussing is not developed enough to decide if this falls into the category of 'pseudo-academic' or self advocating. We should assume some good faith. It is also important to realize that the subject of this page might be quite different from what someone might expect. See the links at Satanism: Real & Imaginary for info on possible meanings of the term. If there are concerns about broader policy issues regarding a number of religious topic pages on wv than we should start a discusison on that (outside of an rfd for a single page) and then come back to this when we have a policy. --mikeu ^talk 12:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Currently the only part of the Wikiversity:Deletion_policy that could be used against this article is the No meaningful content or history, but this would have to be refuted I feel on the basis that the project was only created in February 2008. Let's keep it a stub article but I'd recommend we remove the RFD. I'd imagine that at some point it may fall into the above category, but until then it seems a bit premature. Countrymike 21:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Support. I suspect that the people responsible for the creation of the page are part of a cult called The Joy of Satan. This group advocates criminal acts as part of a "greater sacrifice." I think we would all be better off as a community for having this page removed. Magosgruss 1:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I am the creator of this article and apologize for my inability of late to work on it. I assure you, however, that I am in no way affiliated with the Joy of Satan. Thus I would ask that you refrain from making assumptions regarding my (lack of) association with a racist cult. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nyskraa (talk • contribs) 11:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I make no such assumptions myself - we need to assume good faith, remember? (And pardon any punnery :-)) Cormaggio ^talk 16:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Support - I support a delete or merging of any useful learning content with other pages. Research, lessons, or learning projects for theistic satanism can take place in another context. For example, here (about the only actual research on the subject when searching " "theistic satanism" site:.edu " in Google) it takes place in the context of being research by people from the "Institute for the Research of Organized and Ritual Violence". You might notice with that search that the number one result is a blog post, and the second result is with the "Wikipedia Trust Project", and there are only five results. --Remi 20:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose deletion for the time being; Satanism is a real and valid religion, and there is Wikipedia content on both Satanism and Theistic Satanism (one form of Satanism). If the page becomes problematic, I may vote for deletion in the future. But I think we should give it a chance. The Jade Knight 12:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

 Comment 3 oppose and 3 support. There is developed content at w:en:Theistic Satanism, so this looks like a page of links with brief summaries. This was listed on RfD on 10 March 2008, and there has been no significant support to delete this per the reason listed. Dzonatas 16:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

REASON - Bible is very short, and abruptly refers the user to an outside link. Most (all?) text is a copy of what is found at the external link. The material is contrary to the ideas of WV:NPOV and WV:NOT. -- 190.136.249.98 15:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• ARGUMENTS:
• I would rather see the content improved than the page deleted. It's obviously a topic which many people are interested to learn about. -- Jtneill - Talk 01:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly agree with Jtneill, and oppose deletion - the page simply needs work, and "needing work" is not a valid reason for deleting something. On NPOV, see Wikiversity:Disclosures - I don't see what aspects of WV:NOT you think are being violated. There's also discussion on Talk:Bible. Cormaggio ^talk 09:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• We need to check what text "is a copy of what is found at the external link" and the copyright status of that link. --mikeu ^talk 10:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I apologise - I didn't check the external link - see [6]. It says there that it's the same person developing that site and Wikiversity pages, in which case there's no problem with licencing. However, I'm not comfortable with developing resources on Wikiversity in order to link to much more POV lessons elsewhere, unless there is some sense of acknowledging a bias, and critiques of that bias. Cormaggio ^talk 11:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• The page needs considerable work. But then so does Wikiversity. --McCormack 10:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• If it is not a copyvio, then keep. Emesee 20:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

 Comment All the arguments above appear to oppose deletion and want to see improvement. Dzonatas 16:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Montana Mouse
• Barsoom Tork
• Gastrin Bombesin
• Caprice
• Albatross

He has been using these in fake sig lines on Wikiversity and now Wikipedia. I do not think it is fair for Moulton to use Wikiversity pages to make it appear as if he is an unblocked user, especially on other Wikimedia servers in which he is blocked. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

He was signing with those names and not linking those names to "Moulton". The point of those pages is so that when he signs with other names, he links to "Moulton". Deleting those pages does not prevent him from signing with other names; it only makes thing worse by then not having a link to "Moulton". If you wish to achieve the goal of Moulton not making comments while blocked, you need a different solution than the proposed one of deleting those pages. In short, while your concern seems valid, the proposed method of dealing with that concern appears poorly thought out. WAS 4.250 14:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions are most welcome. One thought is to blank the page, post a notice that the user account who created the page is blocked, and then protect it. I don't know if that is a course that we wish to take at this time, and I request that others comment. There are a couple of things to think about. One is that Moulton can not edit these pages while logged in as himself, and so the purpose of using the pages to respond to others is moot. He is a blocked user who has abused the right to edit his own talk page while being logged in. That page was protected to prevent personal information from being posted, which has required oversight. Another issue is that he is giving the false impression that he has an active account at wv. --mikeu ^talk 14:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

He is a retired Ph.D. in computer related stuff who has money and friends at MIT. He can get around any technical measure this community uses to try to block him, if he puts his mind to it. How much effort do people here really want to use in dealing with this? Some have suggested that WikiMedia needs to have some sort of useage of resources statement that would allow it to sue especially difficult cases. I don't see a solution at all as long as WikiMedia insists on "anyone can edit" combined with blocking/banning based on "consensus" as this does in fact eventually create a game where the only people willing to spend the time reverting blocked users' "contributions" are mostly motivated by the game aspectand the feeling of power. WAS 4.250 15:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Money and friends are not what sustains Moulton. Moulton is sustained by an unquenchable passion as a veteran (if laughably inept) science educator. —Montana Mouse 14:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(<---)WAS 4.250, you are 100% correct. However, it is insulting for Moulton to link to Wikiversity "profiles" while going around his block on Wikipedia, like he did here. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It is only "insulting" if you take seriously claims that WikiMedia sites are capable of blocking/banning intelligent adults with the money to change ISPs and travel to various libraries and such. It can not. It can effectively block children and can ban people who want to play the wiki-game under an established avatar and so will willingly not get around the ban until they are allowed to continue playing the game. Anyone with intelligence and resources is capable of playing the game wearing the robes of the adversary in the wiki-game. I do not wish to play that game as either the adversary who gets his comments deleted because "banned means banned"; nor do I wish to play the role of the banniator going around blocking and deleting banned users contributions. I think Moulton is being childish, but I certainly am not insulted. I suppose he has time to kill and this helps him fill his days. I wish he found cooperation more fun than confrontation. I know I do. WAS 4.250 17:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Moulton is engaged in the traditional practice of Didactic Education. I am curious to discover what (if anything) anyone is learning, and what emotions (if any) are surfacing in the course of the discovery learning process. —Barsoom Tork 13:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I can quickly and efficiently ban Moulton from this project if it is requested. Salmon of Doubt 18:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think we'd rather have humans pushing the buttons for now :-). --SB_Johnny ^talk 19:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. You won't get an interesting through-line on the dramaturgy if it's all mindlessly automated. So, as SBJ indicates, Moulton's cast of dramaturgical characters are required to engage with the other fluidic characters, so as to sufficiently elevate the issues above radar sonar to reveal the thrilling conclusion to the Chronicles of Wikia. —Montana Mouse 13:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If he were contributing constructively, it would be one thing, but, as can seen above, Moulton's alter egos are used primarily for his flat attempts at jokes, making them disruptive. The recent experiences here tell me that Moulton will continually push to see just how much he can get away with. As a result, I suggest the pages be Deleted as a step towards discouraging the behavior. If he continues, the custodians can work on the next step. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 16:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I call for a sober scholarly review of the didactic value of Moulton's use of Muppet-like character voices. How well is Moulton employing the venerated methods inspired by the famous pioneers of 20th century education such as Burr Tillstrom, Jim Henson, Shari Lewis, and Fred Rogers?

The use of puppet characters in educational sketches is a time-honored tradition. Burr Tilstrom pioneered it on children's educational television with Kukla, Fran and Ollie, quickly followed by "Buffalo" Bob Smith with Howdy Doody. Shari Lewis, Bob Keeshan (Captain Kangaroo), Fred Rogers, and (especially) Jim Henson used puppetry in a creative and appropriate manner to craft high-quality edutainment aimed at children of the late 20th Century. I expect that some of our academically dry material can be usefully presented through Aesopian sketches populated by such Muppet-like players.

Moulton, the Schmeggegy Scientist has long used well-known character voices like Montana Mouse, Barsoom Tork, Gastrin Bombesin, and myself (among many others) to voice different perspectives in dramatized presentations of fundamental educational ideas.

Caprice the Flying Goat 17:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Moulton has claimed he's using characters as a sketch/show. However, that's not what he's doing, so that excuse is worthless. He's doing the equivalent of pulling out hand-puppets in board meetings. It might be considered funny once or twice (if there's an obvious purpose), but doing it constantly would be intentionally disruptive (or just nuts). Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to posit theses like that, then you have an ethical obligation to support your thesis with evidence, analysis, and reasoning, and submit your thesis to scholarly peer review, in accordance with the academic principles of scholarly ethics. What evidence do you have to posit the thesis that we are not engaged in an educational discourse among Muppet-like characters arguing in the manner of Bert and Ernie? —Moulton 13:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep unless he keeps defying the ban, in which case, delete. Emesee 19:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sxeptomaniac, The present problem is that Moulton is using different ip addresses to go around a block, not whether these pages are appropriate. That doing it constantly is disruptive is your opinion and is not a fact. I feel unease at your mention of "board meeting" (which makes me think of power, struggle and formality); for what we have on wikiversity is a Colloquium and what we do in a Colloquium is to talk and to listen to as many voices as possible. Wikiversity is experimental and exploratory and using clearly defined alter-egos to represent different voices is an interesting thing to try, so long as the attribution ("who said what") is clear. It may be funny to you sometimes but, as I have seen it, the point of any humour is not to be funny but to get a message across. Before these pages on wikiversity these characters were on external sites and it was much more difficult to track "who did what" in any discussion. Deleting these pages will not solve your problem; it would only make it worse, for Moulton will continue to go around the block, linking his alter-egos to external sites. Hillgentleman|Talk 01:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your sober, sane, and insightful commentary, Hillgentleman. I sincerly hope that, going forward, your scholarly example becomes the norm here. —Moulton 13:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand my point. I never claimed that deleting the pages would magically solve any problems. It's just a step in discouraging disruptive behavior.

Perhaps you've not been to many board meetings for small organizations. I've been to good ones and bad ones. A certain level of formality is absolutely necessary, or all you have is chaos, and nothing ever gets done. Process is necessary (as long as it's balanced with flexibility and not process for the sake of process).

The point of humor is not to be funny? That's got to be one of the saddest things I've heard in a long time. Nevertheless, Moulton has frequently not been making any relevant points to the topic at hand, either. The edit war we have going on now on this page isn't much better, unfortunately. I suggest that only the off-topic material get deleted from this page for now. Encourage him to stay on-topic and discourage disruption. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 16:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Note - I just wanted to note that I put these up here just so that he won't be using our servers to link to other projects like Wikipedia. I would prefer that other Wikimedia projects know that we are not hosting his content so he can simply link back to it. If some other website hosts his content and he links to it constantly, I'm sure that they could be asked to remove it as it is part of his constant avoiding blocks and possibly harassing. That is all. The community can decide if they agree with my belief or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, take issue with your system of belief. —Caprice 20:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Novel Approach to Feelings: Using Literary Characters to Teach Emotional Intelligence

From Edutopia, published by the George Lucas Educational Foundation...

Moulton's use of didactic characters to enhance discussions about community building, fairness, conflict resolution, and related topics in Emotional Intelligence is all part of the mix of modern educational thinking. —Montana Mouse 20:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You're making up excuses after-the-fact, Moulton. The article describes a specific lesson plan, in which characters from a story are discussed separately from the reading. It has absolutely nothing to do with what you've been doing. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

See below. —Montana Mouse 23:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stage Craft: Taking Cues from Theater Class to Help Make Math and Science Fun

More from Edutopia, published by the George Lucas Educational Foundation...

I'm not making this up, Sxeptomaniac. I've been a member of the George Lucas Educational Foundation since its inception. I've long worked with other GLEF pioneers like Bonnie Bracey. —Moulton 23:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

So what? Does founding the organization make George Lucas an expert on education, too? If you're going to pretend authority, you should pick at least pick an example that demonstrates some level of expertise. You didn't.

Not to mention, this article doesn't describe the kind of thing you've been doing any more than the last one. It describes a structured lesson plan, and structure is the opposite of your actions. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 05:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I see one fundamental problem with your approach, Moulton: You're not the teacher teaching the students. We are all peers discussing an important issue to the community. It may be perfectly appropriate to use "puppets" to teach in a classroom setting (or even the Wikiversity equivalent), but it strikes me as terribly condescending to use a similar tack with one's peers. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 07:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we are all co-equal learners here, each working at our own idiosyncratic frontiers of discovery learning. By the way, all the characters in the Muppet Factory are my own peers as well. I learn as much from them as they learn from me, since we are all learning together, each of us at our respective frontiers. —Moulton 14:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Disrespect can certainly get in the way of learning, I think we're finding. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 02:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

deleted per discussion
sebmol ? 04:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted them all as they serve no redeeming value other than allowing this user to keep coming back, circumvent his block, and playing his sort of contraproductive games. sebmol ^? 04:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Reason: poem on non-notable topic added by anonymous IP user; not linked to any other content; totally unwikified; no educational relevance. --McCormack 14:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree. -- Jtneill - Talk 15:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and move. Presuming this is the product of the energy of someone's imagination and creativity, we could adapt this person's work into an education context and allow it to be a starting point for others to further their own learning. Strong support to move this to Film writing/Brainstorming/Wicklow Games or some similar area of Wikiversity (like creative writing, perhaps). Emesee 21:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The page has been moved to Fiction writing/Wicklow Games and a section added here Emesee 19:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I originally nominated this for speedily deletion, being of the opinion that it is outside the scope of the project being simply content which would be more appropriate on Wikipedia but this was contested. Today is now over a month since this was first created and I see no evidence whatsoever that this is ever going to develop into something associated with the creation of learning resources. For this reason I again nominated it for speedily deletion today and this was again contested, JWSchmidt commenting that "Wikiversity welcomes information about educational institutions" but I'm not sure that is entirely accurate. In the context of a school participating in writing learning materials then some basic information about that school might be appropriate but since this isn't the context this really is information more fit for Wikipedia. However, I would note that I am not suggesting that this should be moved to Wikipedia since I am not confident that it would be considered notable. I therefore propose it is deleted. Adambro 14:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much agree with others. Based on you thinking it might not be notable for Wikpedia, speedy keep. Still, otherwise, keep because it could be used as a sort of starting point for future participants at this institution. Emesee 20:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

keep and suggestion to replace the deletion template with the welcome and expand template. ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 20:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Adambro, Please provide a link to the previous discussion. Hillgentleman|Talk 15:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete if it has been abandoned. If there is someone out there who cares about it and can give a reasonable explanation as to why it should be on Wikiversity, then keep. The Jade Knight 12:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• 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)
• Keep - http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fy789 - and search google "how to clean a toilet site:.edu" Emesee 03:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• 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)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)
  • 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)

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)
• 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)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deleted per consensus. --mikeu ^talk 04:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

• I agree because as per nom. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support--Gbaor 09:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support --mikeu ^talk 21:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, probable advert or hoax. KillerChihuahua 18:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deleted per consensus. --mikeu ^talk 04:32, 23 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)

• I agree because as per nom. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support--Gbaor 09:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support --mikeu ^talk 21:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, probable advert or hoax. KillerChihuahua 18:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is a recreation of the page that was nominated at Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/3#Terry_Ananny_-_MOVED.2C_REWRITTEN. Please see the discussion there, and comment here. --mikeu ^talk 03:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: the page was blanked by the same anon that had been working on it, just after the dr template was placed on the page. --mikeu ^talk 19:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Move Terry Ananny content to userspace. A mainspace page with a generic title like Painters should not be used for one individual to advertise. --mikeu ^talk 03:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

  Delete per Jtneill below. --mikeu ^talk 19:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Note that I recently speedy deleted Terry ananny. These are anon contribs, so I'm not sure that moving it to a user page makes much sense unless some evidence of intent to participate in creating learning resources becomes apparent. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Emesee 05:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Closed because the original editor removed the material from the page. Further insertions of this same information should be treated as a speedy delete. I'll leave the empty Painters page in case anyone wants to expand it. --mikeu ^talk 03:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unnecessary redirect. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 04:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree, but first adjust the remaining user page links Special:WhatLinksHere/Initial experiences. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

See: Amateur astronomy/Initial experiences --mikeu ^talk 19:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.