Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion/Archives/4

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 had been tagged for both deletion (for the reason "This information is already merged into the main article") and merge (with What is HTML). There is a discussion at Talk:Introduction to HTML and another at Talk:What is HTML. Please comment. --mikeu ^talk 11:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

See also: Talk:What is HTML and Talk:Introduction to HTML --mikeu ^talk 20:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Support merge then deletion. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 12:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree because it seems to me that we could have multiple courses on the same topic. Keep. Emesee 19:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Support merge until such time as there is enough content to create two courses on this topic. --mikeu ^talk 03:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

no consensus - between the comments on the two talk pages and the comments above, there is no consensus to merge or delete. --mikeu ^talk 19:34, 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.

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.

Topic:Ocean engineering and naval architecture per author request. [1] Please review. --mikeu ^talk 20:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

keep - no comments, no support for deletion. --mikeu ^talk 19:41, 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.

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 --mikeu ^talk 15:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

Support delete - It is already defined at wikt:abaya and there is an article at w:Abaya. --mikeu ^talk 20:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If it is not a nonsense word, then add a welcome header and keep. Emesee 21:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Appears to be an alternate spelling of w:Abaya. Doesn't appear to be anything other than an encyclopedia stub, though, so no reason to keep it at this time. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:12, 11 December 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--mikeu talk 15:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

Delete a single definition does not belong here. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:39, 11 December 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 --mikeu ^talk 14:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

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

delete --mikeu ^talk 20:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no content at all. Why are we even discussing this? – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 04:00, 9 December 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 --mikeu ^talk 14:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

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

I would prefer move to userpage, but since it was created by an anon, I suggest delete. --mikeu ^talk 20:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete No purpose in keeping that here. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:20, 11 December 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.

Kept per concensus. --mikeu ^talk 13:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Fasten has requested deletion of Assistant teacher course and related subpages: Special:PrefixIndex/Assistant teacher course. Fasten was the main contributor. The content was previously declared to be in the public domain. No reason has been added to the templates, but there is some discussion on Fasten's talk page. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 09:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to think. Fasten has a history of creating projects and then requesting delete. See Special:Contributions/Fasten, Special:DeletedContributions/Fasten, b:Special:Contributions/Fasten, b:Special:DeletedContributions/Fasten, and http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Special:Contributions/Fasten for a bit of background. --SB_Johnny ^talk 15:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Fasten made a donation in terms of their time and knowledge, and it is generally bad form to try and take a donation back on a whim. It's been given away, and is no longer Fasten's property. It was released as public domain, meaning it's up to the WV community whether we keep it here or not. I'm willing to rethink this if Fasten comes up with a better rationale than what's been stated on their talk page so far, though. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 18:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Fasten has already donated their time and energy to provide this knowledge. Deletion would just be an unnecessary waste. Wikiversity is not bound by time restraints and materials do not require active or constant development and participation to be useful. Someone may later on decide to improve it, or find it and wish to learn from it. --darklama 19:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep if there is significant content. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 02:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy keep - Fasten has done this in the past & elsewhere - I see no valid reason to delete it. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep I don't see why this course should be removed, from what I've read half-way through the earlier revision it seems perfectly fine. Dark Obsidian 17:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Thanks for the appreciation expressed for the Wikiversity assistant teacher program. I hope that means there will be more contributors in the future? --fasten 15:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, have you ever considered setting up a participants list on the main project page or in a subpage - at least by doing that any editors who come along and want to help out could add their username on the list, and you will then know who's part of the project. Dark Obsidian 21:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. Additionally, you could use that list to contact them and ask them to help out more. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 22:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, since Fasten is concerned about contributors being interested in the Assistant Teachers course - it wouldn't harm if he did create a participants list, plus he could ask those on the Education Wikia sites if they themselves wouldn't mind assisting with the project, I'm sure some on Wikia may agree to provide help so long as it doesn't come across as "spam". Dark Obsidian 22:38, 13 December 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 request is about User:JWSchmidt/Blog and all its subpages.

This collection of personal subpages strike me as an inappropriate use of Wikiversity's and Wikimedia's resources; they serve no educational purpose and are outside Wikiversity's scope. Wikimedia websites are not intended to serve as blog platforms or a general hosting service for participants. I recommend that all these pages be moved to a "real" blog outside Wikiversity that could be added to the http://en.planet.wikimedia.org . guillom 10:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose -- this sort of material has been discussed as being relevant to Wikiversity's role as a "personal learning environment". Of course there's no policy on it, but it's been a "tradition" since nearly the beginning (some of those pages even predate en.wv as an independent project). --SB_Johnny ^talk 16:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose -- you could learn a lot about Wikiversity by reading JWS' blog. Countrymike 21:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I thought wv is quite open environment. And also, that we are not attacking peoples userspaces. So if something attacts guillom, why not to talk about those things, without deleting at all. I have a blog too.--Juandev 21:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Per Countrymike. Dark Obsidian 09:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Set learning free. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 11:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - for the International Year of Astronomy I was planning on creating a Cosmic Diary blog here at wikiversity. "The Cosmic Diary is not about the science of astronomy, but about what it is like to be an astronomer. Professionals will blog in text and images about their life, families, friends, hobbies and interests, as well as their work, latest research findings and the challenges they face." [2] I'd say that blog projects like this and others that I have seen here have obvious educational value. --mikeu ^talk 15:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, if no one supports within 24 hours, I will close this as an overwhelming keep. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• comment: I challenge the validity Guillom's claim that my blog pages "serve no educational purpose". In the beginning, Wikiversity was founded on this basis: "..... the idea here is to also host learning communities, so people who are actually trying to learn, actually have a place to come and interact and help each other figure out how to learn things. We're also going to be hosting and fostering research into how these kinds of things can be used more effectively." My blog pages are important for my personal goal of learning about how the Wikiversity community can use wiki technology to support online learning. I have spent years studying how wiki technology can be used to promote online learning and my blog pages reflect my on-going study of wiki as a tool for online learning. I firmly believe in the idea that Wikiversity participants should be free to document their learning interests and experiences on their user pages. This function of user pages has become particularly important since self-appointed censors have begun to impose restrictions on main namespace and Wikiversity namespace content. This censorship starts at the top with Jimmy Wales having unilaterally imposed restrictions on what can be studied by Wikiversity participants. Unfortunately, Jimmy has refused to engage with the community and help convert his edict into coherent written policy. Further, he seems to have adopted the position that he will not even discuss censorship of Wikiversity content, that we all have to just live with it as a basic element of reality, like gravity. I reject the idea that a learning environment can be constructed by banning discussion of topics like censorship and I intend to continue examining such topics at Wikiversity. I was blocked from editing and had my custodianship terminated because I started to modify Wikiversity policy to reflect Jimmy's restrictions on what we can do here at Wikiversity. I find such censorship and punishment of scholars at Wikiversity a fascinating topic for study and reflection. I call on Guillom to help the Wikiversity community define the scope of Wikiversity by making explicit exactly which uses of wiki technology should not be allowed as learning tools at Wikiversity. I'm interested to hear from Guillom exactly how my blog's purpose, reflection on my learning goals, and specifically, understanding how to use wiki technology to support online learning, is "outside Wikiversity's scope". I'd like Guillom's help in sorting out his justification for deletion of my blog pages: "Wikimedia websites are not intended to serve as blog platforms or a general hosting service for participants." If my blog pages were about topics unrelated to developing Wikiversity as a center for online learning then Guillom's reasons for deletion might be relevant, but I view my blog pages, and their focus on my concerns with understanding the development of Wikiversity as a website devoted to the facilitation of online learning, as a valid part of Wikiversity. Study of censorship at Wikiversity has become a major interest of mine. I wonder if Guillom's real objective is to prevent any examination of such topics at Wikiversity. I wonder: is the real issue here the blog format or the topics covered? --JWSchmidt 16:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Knock off the loaded questions. If you want to accuse Guillom, then do so. If you want to ask him a question, then do that. Attempting to disguise your accusations behind supposed questions just annoys me. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"Attempting to disguise your accusations" <-- ya, I hate when that happens, and this time I did it so well I am not even aware of the "accusations"! Can you list them for me? Thanks. --JWSchmidt 18:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There are multiple ones, but the last two sentences are the most ridiculous thinly veiled accusations. If you really aren't paying attention to what you're saying, try using fewer words with more coherent points, rather than slipshod rants. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 19:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's try to keep this discussion on topic. The initial request was (IMO) a bit flawed in that it should have either given a reason why the User:JWSchmidt/Blog pages specifically should be singled out as "they serve no educational purpose" or it should have been a blanket nom for everything in Category:Blogs to open a discussion on why blogs in general should be excluded from wikiversity. Mixing the two topics just confuses the discussion. In any case, there is overwhelming opposition to the deletion of the pages listed above and it also looks like there is strong support for blogs and the creation of Personal learning environments. I'm particularly perplexed by the mentions of censorship since everyone (note that not even guillom has voted to support the request, at this time) has opposed the measure, and Ottava Rima had already stated that the discussion will soon close with "overwhelming keep" unless someone shows support, which could extend the discussion. How is censorship relevant to this section when everyone is opposed to deletion? If there are concerns about censorship that do not involve the pages listed in this section, it should be brought up within an appropriate forum. Other general issues can (and should) be explored at Wikiversity talk:What is Wikiversity? or at other pages. --mikeu ^talk 19:17, 9 January 2009 (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.

Closed as Delete because the custodians of ja.wikiversity have deemed the material inappropriate for transwiki and are considered copyright violations. s:en: is currently looking into transwiki of the non copyvio material. --mikeu ^talk 12:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This request applies to the following pages:

See also: Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/September_2008#Japan_high_school_songs and User talk:Okanosato. --mikeu ^talk 18:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

These pages are probably copyright violations. See User:Hillgentleman's comments at Wikiversity:Colloquium#Japan_high_school_songs. If they were in English, we could probably check them out as part of a deletion request process, but as they are incomprehensible to most of us, I think we should play safe and delete anyway. At best, they should be transferred to a sister project in the appropriate language. --McCormack 08:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I vote transwiki to the Japanese Wikiversity and let them deal with it, unless someone here knows Japanese well enough to check on the status of these, or unless we can get a clear attestation of the author as to their origin and non copyvio-ness. The Jade Knight 09:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically we can't "vote" transwiki, because we can't force them to accept the materials. We can only vote "delete" with a proviso that we put a transwiki request in over there and give them a bit of time. Mind you, you could become a user on Japanese Wikiversity and help form opinion over there ;-) --McCormack 09:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm voting it anyway; if they wont accept the materials, then they'll get lost in limbo. The Jade Knight 06:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support/transwiki. Even if we translate them and they are valid, we "en" still don't know if they are appropriate. This gives me an the idea that exercises that teach other languages should be partial to move or link their 'immersed' teachings to the related language wiki. Dzonatas 13:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support/transwiki -- Jtneill - Talk - c 13:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Probably support transwiki. I wondered when I first saw these if there could ever be a learning resource only in Japanese (i.e. without context given in English) or some other language at the English Wikiversity that could be useful and purposeful. I can't think of how; can anyone? Emesee mobi 02:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I can, actually: language projects related to a language learning department which have either a) been designed with English speakers in mind, or b) are in a language which lacks its own Wikiversity. For example, Breton language materials, administered by the Breton language Department here, may be entirely appropriate. The Jade Knight 06:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• If the Japanese project wants them, they should take them on, but there's no sense to keeping stuff that's not in English in the English Wikiversity. Dtobias 04:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • There is, in fact (thought not necessarily in this case). See above. The Jade Knight 06:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Noting that the author removed the {{dr}} tags before any decision was notified here and without answering the questions on his talk page. I'm reinserting the tags until we have a concrete decision about what steps to take next. For example, the tags could be replaced with a new template which says "it has been decided to transwiki and then delete this resource...". --McCormack 05:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this new page related? 携帯電話と人々 -- Jtneill - Talk - c 09:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

More pages from the same person (9 pages in the second column) --Gbaor 09:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

 Comment I can think of good reasons to have multi-lingual resources here at en (one great example is Romance of the Three Kingdoms, but even that one might be more better suited at beta multilingual hub). But in this case most of us have no idea what the content really is, and there has been a suggestion that these are copyvio. If that is true then transwiki is out of the question. We have already tried to contact them on the talk pages in english. I think the best thing to do now would be to try to find someone that speaks the language to leave a note on the user talk pages and suggest that they participate at beta or ja where there is a community of speakers of the language. We really don't have the resources to patrol for copyvios, libel or other inappropriate content in other languages. --mikeu ^talk 00:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully note that unless we can find an exact copy of this text somewhere, then it seems that to say these are copyvio's is probably just speculation. If we transwiki these to ja wikiv then there is a better chance for knowing for sure. If this were copyvios of American fight songs, especially at a college level, there is a good chance someone might just know if they are a copyvio or not. Emesee 00:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

We can ask if someone at ja would like to import them from en, or we can ask the user if they would like to copy them there, but we can't unilaterally transwiki. (see error message at http://ja.wikiversity.org/wiki/特別:Import, it is restricted to users in the group http://ja.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:用務員) What I am trying to say is that mediawiki only allows pages to be pulled, not pushed. More importantly, it is their decision to choose if the pages are worth importing. --mikeu ^talk 01:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, see also: http://ja.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:%E8%AB%87%E8%A9%B1%E5%AE%A4&diff=3529&oldid=3514 --mikeu ^talk 01:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If nobody else wants these pages, I will look into their suitability for Wikisource. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

•  Comment I'm a Custodian of Japanese Wikiversity. All of these pages are copyrighted songs, and most of them are Japan highschool songs. Please delete them. These pages are considered copyright violations, and inappropriate for transwiki. Thank you. --Kanjy 15:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment I think too. There pages should be delete. And Okanosato seems to be a vandal user. --Marine-Blue [ talk contribs ] 06:56, 20 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.

• Closing note - no consensus either way. Restart if needed without prejudice. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see Category:Contested_candidates_for_deletion. The creator of the page has contested the speedy delete. --mikeu ^talk 01:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You may also want to follow or participate in discussion at Talk:100¢. Cormaggio ^talk 10:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This article seems to be an encyclopedic dump, without any learning-related material and seemingly little prospect for being made into a learning resource. Perhaps the material could be shifted to wp, but it doesn't seem to belong on wv. -- Jtneill - Talk 13:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be part of a larger set of resources Category:United States currency. But I'm still not seeing how this relates to learning. Why isn't this material on WP instead? -- Jtneill - Talk 13:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It also seems Cormaggio has commented about this here: User_talk:Km#Currency. -- Jtneill - Talk 13:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, what I looked at before was taken, and adapted, from Wikipedia - and with no indication of how it suited Wikiversity's aims. I would have deleted them on the spot, but I wanted to encourage the (new, and relatively young) user. I'd support their deletion now - though I wonder if all we have to point people to is Wikiversity:Learning resources? Cormaggio ^talk 19:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there are a bunch of pages like this related to currencies around here. Perhaps they could all be turned into a book and put on Wikibooks. If they are just duplicates of Wikipedia content, I'd lean towards delete. If they were adapted, then it seems more likely that the author may have had some intention of making this appropriate for Wikiversity and in which case they may be sort of like a handout. Emesee 21:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Now, here's a topic worthy of putting in one's two cents, times 50. This is a rather weirdly named resource; if it were to be kept, then "Dollar coins of the United States" would make more sense (cents?). But recounting that information would fit better in Wikipedia than Wikiversity. U.S. numismatic history might be worthy of a Wikiversity topic or two, but they'd need to be better defined and organized than this. Dtobias 04:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

 Comment Original content found at w:en:Dollar_(United_States_coin) and related pages, and they have been reorganized here. Despite the reasons listed above, these pages here on Wikiversity can be obviously listed for speedy delete for lack of attribution. Any improvement would need to start from scratch with proper attribution. Dzonatas 17:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

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.

• Closing note - author removed the text and said it could be deleted. Community supports a deletion. Deleted on both accounts. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Note This page has since been moved to Creative writing/Miley Cyrus, and the current page is a redirect. This took place on 23 August 2008. Only Jade Knight's comments have come after the redirect. If there are no complaints, I will close this and then others can refile under its new name. Since it moved, the current redirect exists. If there are no complaints or requests not to, I will remove it within 24 hours unless someone else steps in before I do. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any educational content in this. Is there any way to make a valuable entry here? (I don't think so.)--Gbaor 08:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete. No educational content or prospect of. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Based on the demographics of the fan base, I assume this may have been written by someone still refining their writing skills. So if this is a good faith edit of someone practicing their writing skills, having maybe learned from that practice, I'm not certain this should be deleted. Emesee 12:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No doubt about good faith in this case. It is about educational content... but your note was interesting... "someone practicing their writing skills..." Maybe we can make a Topic:Writing skills practice, and label this entry (and similar ones) with a corresponding template? i.e. Just for writing skill practice (short stories, etc.)?--Gbaor 12:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I also would like that these are categorized. Deletion can be done anytime. Hopefully with this we can win participants. ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 18:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• 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)
• Delete: Page has now even been blanked. Past revisions support the claim that this was intended as a Wikipedia article. --Swift 04:31, 25 February 2009 (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 clearly appears to have been created as a test edit, and has no content, and is unlikely to have any content any time soon. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 20:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep Emesee 21:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete Per nom. As with other no-content dead projects, it can be recreated when someone's ready to do something with it. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete Per nom, and per Sxeptomaniac's comment. Until It Sleeps 04:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete --mikeu ^talk 12:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete: No meaningful content. --Swift 05:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I moved it to wikademia Benthic_environments so I don't care much anymore

Keep There is very little content, but at least one useful link. This page clould be educational in the future, if it will be more developed (maybe based on that link...) --Gbaor 19:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete No useful content. One link isn't worth keeping. Doesn't look like it will magic itself into a learning resource any time soon. Adambro 10:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Done deleted. --mikeu ^talk 17:51, 28 June 2009 (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.

It is a selfpromo. Nothing educationl. Look at English Wikipedia: w:User:Bishop J. L. Mathis.--Juan de Vojníkov 00:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: there is a repy on ongoing process to convert is to educational resource: User talk:Bishop J. L. Mathis#Bishop J. L. Mathis.--Juan de Vojníkov 19:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete: No educational scope in sight. --Swift 05:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete: per nominator. --Gbaor 19:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I copied the article to another wiki!! so i guess i don't care. preferably, for things that are not libel and similar such things, we create a new namespace called "Saved:" or "Archive:" and just moved articles there.

Delete No useful content. Doesn't look like it will magic itself into a learning resource any time soon. Adambro 10:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Done deleted. --mikeu ^talk 17:48, 28 June 2009 (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'd like to request deletion of User:Stevenarntson/Wikiversity_Primer/sample_Userspace. I've changed the way I'm doing things a little, and am not using it anymore. Thank you! Stevenarntson 17:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be eligible for speedy deletion. --Swift 16:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Done --mikeu ^talk 22:00, 5 April 2009 (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 was intentionally was supposed to be Chapter 10 as a Chapter 9 page has been created. Please delete this page ASAP. Thank you. Talk 07:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC-8)

Please tag it for speedy deletion and use descriptive page titles rather than numbered ones. --Swift 06:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

For speedy deletion the {{delete}} is better... The page in question was deleted, as authors request.--Gbaor 19:13, 21 April 2009 (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.

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)

Delete: Currently unused and unlikely to be of use to anyone but the uploader. Might as well reduce the clutter. Should the user return, she can request undelete. --Swift 04:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment I know things can move slowly on smaller wikis but this deletion request has been open now for 10 months now. The image which has yet to be deleted is unused, has an uncertain licensing situation, and was uploaded by a user whose Wikiversity career lasted all of 15 minutes back in 2006. Can this be deleted now? It doesn't seem anyone is overwhelmingly worried about this being deleted. Adambro 19:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Done --mikeu ^talk 00:27, 3 July 2009 (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.

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)

Delete. False start. Give someone else a clean slate to work with when they're ready to start it again. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep: PD requires no attribution. Copyvio concerns have been countered with a link to the source. --Swift 05:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Done kept --mikeu ^talk 00:35, 3 July 2009 (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.

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)

Delete Not useful, and not likely to be anytime soon. Stubs are useless here. Link directly to Wikipedia from other articles until something useful can be created here. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 04:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete - A link to Wikipedia is not in and of itself useful. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 04:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete: No meaningful content. --Swift 05:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete No useful content. Adambro 10:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Done --mikeu ^talk 00:29, 3 July 2009 (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.

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)

Delete No active contributors or distinct purpose at this time. Use a link to the Wikipedia article until someone is ready to create something that might be useful. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 04:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete - serves no discernible purpose. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 04:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete --mikeu ^talk 12:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete --Swift 05:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't look like it will magic itself into a learning resource any time soon. Adambro 10:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Done --mikeu ^talk 00:31, 3 July 2009 (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.

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)

Delete No active contributors or distinct purpose. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 04:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete - serves no discernable purpose. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 04:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete --mikeu ^talk 12:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete --Swift 05:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Moved to wikademia Anaximenes so sure, delete it, if its going to make this wiki a better place.

Delete Doesn't look like it will magic itself into a learning resource any time soon. Adambro 10:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Done --mikeu ^talk 00:33, 3 July 2009 (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.

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)

Delete Stubs consisting of one link without active contributors or any direction serve no purpose. When someone's ready to do something with the project, they can recreate it. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 04:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete --mikeu ^talk 12:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete --Swift 05:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete No content. Doesn't look like it will magic itself into a learning resource any time soon. Adambro 10:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Done --mikeu ^talk 00:36, 3 July 2009 (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.

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)

Delete Unless someone has some near-future plans to expand it into something useful, it is absurd to keep this page around. It can be easily created if/when someone actually wants to make something of it. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 04:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete --mikeu ^talk 12:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete: No meaningful content. --Swift 05:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete No useful content. Doesn't look like it will magic itself into a learning resource any time soon. Adambro 10:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Done deleted --mikeu ^talk 21:19, 3 July 2009 (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.

Doesn't appear to be here for educational purposes, rather a joke or rant, not NPOV. Cenarium 15:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Agree --Gbaor 18:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Agree also. Obviously created to make a point rather than to provide some grand learning resource. Adambro 20:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Done deleted --mikeu ^talk 21:21, 3 July 2009 (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.

Appears to be a word doc, not an ogg file at all. Smells fishy virusy to me. Look at it under a text editor (not Word!) if you want convincing. I've already hacked away all references to it. --Yako 00:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete As per nom. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Done given the potential for malicious code in the file I have speedy deleted this. --mikeu ^talk 11:08, 4 July 2009 (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 file is a copy of File:French Grammar - The French Alphabet.ogg which seems to be a word doc - maybe virus-infected? - and has also been requested for deletion. --Yako 00:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete As per nom. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Done given the potential for malicious code in the file I have speedy deleted this. --mikeu ^talk 11:08, 4 July 2009 (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.

Simply a copy of the Wikipedia article as noted on the talk page. Adambro 08:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggest replacing content with {{wikipedia}} and a stub (or something like that). It would be good to keep a placeholder page on this topic, esp. since there is at least one recently actively course of study on Wikiversity which has been using MATLAB. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Done by which I mean kept or deletion nomination withdrawn. I note from a search that we have a good number of pages relating to this subject so it makes sense to keep this page. I have removed the majority of the text simply copied from Wikipedia to leave a short introduction. It will need further work to link to any other relevant pages but I no longer consider that it should be deleted. Adambro 16:22, 5 July 2009 (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.

An undeletion request template has been added to this page stating: "I propose this is undeleted, or else, I will nominate a course in troll sock puppets for deletion, because this is meant and intended to be as serious as that. There fore if that is serious, then this is meant to be as serious.... so... hmm.. how shall we proceed??" I have restored the page for now, so that everyone can see the content and comment. Please discuss. --mikeu ^talk 13:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like disruption to make a point. What the point is, I have no idea. He's welcome to request deletion on the other page... what's the problem? --SB_Johnny ^talk 14:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion bait. Develop/justify properly or delete, but do not keep in current form. An example of development might be Crocodile. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 14:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The request was placed on the page without a section created here. I'm simply crossing the t's and dotting the i's by fixing the broken discussion link in the template. Otherwise, I agree that it is a waste of time and energy to consider the request. Also, I started the entry here to draw attention to edits which appear to be part of larger pattern, both here and elsewhere w:en:User_talk:Wikademia w:en:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive532#User:Wikademia, which I feel are relevant to other deletion discussions on this page. The next step would be to start a review at WV:AN. --mikeu ^talk 14:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep Other resources, which could perhaps appear to be somewhat similar in certain regards appear to exist undisturbed. So then why disturb this one? Wikademia

Wikademia, I'd suggest we treat each resource on its merits. Feel free to develop or nominate for deletion other similarly problematic pages. Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 14:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Done, by which I mean deleted. There is no point wasting any more time with this. The existence of other content which may or may not have similar problems is not a reason to keep this. There was never any indication of any desire for this to be anything other than a "joke". There are much more useful ways for the community to spend their time rather than being distracted by this. Adambro 14:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Course_on_KittenS!!!&action=edit&redlink=1 <-- it appears there was an attempt at a serious conversation related to target audience. Could we please restore the page to User talk:Wikademia/Scratch 0 and please restore the content page, to User:Wikademia/Scratch 0, if you might be so kind? Would restoring this to user namespace be a reasonable compromise? Thank you. Wikademia

Done I am happy to restore it to your userspace if that will assist you in developing the page into a proper learning resource. I would question the value of the current content in achieving that goal though. It should only exist in your userspace for as long as you are interested in developing it. If it gets to a point whereby it shows a potential of becoming a learning resource then it can be moved back into the main namespace. Adambro 15:06, 4 July 2009 (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.

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)

Delete. False start, duplicate project. It could also be redirected to The US Presidents#Unit 1: The Founders. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete or redirect to The US Presidents. --Swift 05:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Done Redirected to The US Presidents#Unit 1: The Founders since it seems very unlikely that this page will be developed further. Adambro 18:04, 6 July 2009 (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.

Wikademia (talk | email | contribs | stats) has added this to a large number of talk pages, it is currently used on about 111 pages, yet I'm unable to understand its value. Whilst I understand the intention of the template, to explain the purpose of a talk page, I do not understand the necessity to do so on all these talk pages. I've tried to discuss this with Wikademia but their response has been very limited. I also find it ironic that they are adding this template explaining the purpose of a talk page yet seem to insist on not using their own and moving comments to their user page or simply removing them. Additionally, I would note that if we wished to explain the purpose of a talk page, I understand it would be straightforward to update the interface to include it, removing the necessity for this template. Therefore, this deletion request isn't about whether we should or shouldn't explain the purpose of a talk page, rather it is about this template being a very poor way of doing it.

I would also propose that if this template is deleted, that all the talk pages which would then be blank are also deleted. Adambro 18:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep. Page deletion is for articles that are doing harm to Wikiversity. This template might be beneficial for new wiki users who do not know what a talk page is for. --JWSchmidt 18:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

As I've said, this isn't about whether or not we should be explaining what a talk page is for. The template is one way of doing it but it is a very poor way. If the community agree with Wikademia that we should be doing this then a change to the interface would be a much quicker and straightforward method. Adambro 18:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"this isn't about whether or not we should be explaining what a talk page is for" <-- In a case like this, where the person proposing deletion did not show that the page causes harm to Wikiversity, the deletion discussion should include discussion of the use and utility of the page. Using this template to explain what a talk page is for can be helpful to new users. If the template does no harm then there is no reason to delete it and no basis for proposing its deletion. --JWSchmidt 18:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you insist on suggesting that a page can only be deleted if it is harmful. Nevertheless, mikeu has explained how creating talk pages like this could be disruptive. To say this template can only be deleted if it can be demonstrating it is harmful is itself harmful to the project because it is a hindrance to implementing a better solution to this problem if one is actually required. Adambro 18:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"I'm not sure why you insist on suggesting that a page can only be deleted if it is harmful" <--Mainly it is because I know the mission of Wikiversity and I defend its policies. I find it tiresome but necessary to explain such things to custodians who should be familiar with them. "it is a hindrance to implementing a better solution to this problem" <-- Please explain how the existence of this template hinders anything. "mikeu has explained how creating talk pages like this could be disruptive" <-- he seems to argue that we cannot be helpful to new editors because it might cause a minor inconvenience for experienced editors. I reject that argument. Wikiversity is explicitly charged with the task of supporting young participants who we can anticipate will include many people who are new to wiki. Their needs should not be callously ignored by experienced Wikipedians. --JWSchmidt 19:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

delete template, and talk pages where the template is the only content. Including the template changes the discussion tab from a redlink, preventing someone from distinguishing between an empty page and one with worthwhile content. This makes our site less clear to navigate and forces users to make extra clicks to learn something that is blatently obvious. --mikeu ^talk 18:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"something that is blatently obvious" <-- the purpose of things like red links and the meaning of messages like "You have followed a link to a page that does not exist yet" are not obvious to new wiki users. I think the template provides useful information to new users. --JWSchmidt 18:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

As I have explained, updating the interface would be much quicker and straightforward than creating every talk page with this template. It may well be useful to some new users but we could provide this same help in a much more efficient way. Adambro 18:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

it is my understanding that on the big wiki they put talk page templates on pages w/o discussion existing already. they do it specifically though and try to make it useful. like science talk page article, or chemistry, theology and break it down probably more specifically. so instead of just deleting this why not try to improve it? Wikademia

Firstly, please sign your comments by typing four tildes (~~~~) or clicking the button. If by "the big wiki" you mean the English Wikipedia, then yes, there are some instances where talk pages are created with only templates. It doesn't change the fact though that this template is, at least in its current form, pointless because it doesn't provide anything that couldn't be done so in a much more efficient way. Additionally, I would ask that you don't add this template to any further pages whilst this deletion request is ongoing. Adambro 19:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• delete, and all pages that contain nothing but the template, per mikeu and nom. I think the "make as many pages as possible, even if nearly empty" track towards building Wikiversity has been played out, and has served only to make a large empty place rather than a small place where active collaborations can cross-pollinate. Templates of this sort specifically designed for the wikiversity, topic, and school namespaces would be good, as well as templates designed for the talk pages of an individual multipage project should the participants feel the need for one. This template only encourages people to follow the link and get that frustrating feeling of "oh, yet another empty page". --SB_Johnny ^talk 20:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have market research to back-up the statement that, "This template only encourages people to follow the link and get that frustrating feeling of 'oh, yet another empty page'." You may be right, but have you run focus groups or some sort of actual research to have some sort of quantitative data to backup what you say is probably true? Or are you saying it with the sole evidence of your own subjective qualitative projection based on your own experiences and biases? Wikademia

Doesn't seem to be working on Wikidemia, does it?

I'm not sure how long you've been involved on the wikis, but in earlier days of Wikipedia, making redlinks blue was a challenge to be met either by just putting everything you know about the subject on the page and/or doing research to create an article (often with still more redlinks). Wikipedia managed to grow rather large that way, so maybe it's a god case of just not fixing what isn't broken. --SB_Johnny ^talk 20:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears that you're trying to feel snarky. Everything is fine on the big wiki. If it is not broken then certainly don't fix it. Wikademia

No, just pointing out that you in particular have kept using this approach on 2 projects now, and it's really not showing any evidence of success. Learning involves communication, and communication is not measured by edit count. --SB_Johnny ^talk 23:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Aside from the truism about communication, that makes no sense to me whatsoever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikademia (talk • contribs) 19:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yah, and keep for now... Wikademia

Keep: Whilst Wikademia's communication and editing style is somewhat obtuse, I don't see any particular harm in applying such a template to some talk pages to help encourage newcomers in particular to use those pages. If we were to agree on a better way to accomplish this, then let's do that first, then go about deleting the btp template and pages its used on. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

(changed to) Delete: As now explained below, MediaWiki:Talkpagetext seems to be a more efficient way and essentially serves the same apparent purpose of this template. However, I hope we could all work towards improving the system messages that appear on an empty talk page and thank Wikiademia for helping to bring this issue forth. Let's discuss more at MediaWiki_talk:Talkpagetext and also darklama's ideas below could be transferred for further discussion e.g., maybe Wikiversity:Usability. CQ's ideas could also be incorporated into MediaWiki:Talkpagetext. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of things that could be done. Could change the discussion tab to say "discuss this page" instead. Could change the msg that is often displayed as a tooltip in graphical web browsers to say "You can discuss this page here". Could maybe make a popup window appear that displays a help box on what discussion pages are for. Does Wikiversity really need any of this though? Surely this is what help pages are suppose to be for? Do you really think people who come to Wikiversity won't be able to understand what a discussion link is for? What makes a discussion page non-obvious to new users? I couldn't find any reported problems with figuring out what discussion pages were for in the Usability Initiative that the Wikimedia Foundation setup. The editing interface was considered a usability problem though. How about instead making it easier to edit pages and making it easier to understand how to edit pages? Maybe than more people will know how to and will participate in discussions too. Another step might be to make the discussion interface easier to follow and use. I believe both of these things are actively being worked on by people as part of the initiative to improve the usability of the mediawiki software. -- darklama  11:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

These are some good points. Rather than then implementing ad hoc solutions that re-invent the wheel, we should try to take a broader view and perhaps learn from the experience that others have had. There is some information at the Usability Initiative that Darklama mentioned that could provide some interesting starting points for our dicussion. Perhaps we should begin a thread in the colloqium and maybe incorporate this into some of our long term planning. There are other topics that have come up on colloqium such as this thread that I'd like to explore more. --mikeu ^talk 14:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep/revise: I agree that a red link is good information that saves an unproductive page load. But it may be ok to revice the template to be more useful. I have suggested a revision. BtW, We have a dormant learning group that was intended to work on creating and improving Templates. We really need to get organized. CQ 15:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I've imported MediaWiki:Talkpagetext and MediaWiki:Newarticletext from Wikipedia. MediaWiki:Newarticletext is displayed whenever a user edits a nonexistant page and MediaWiki:Talkpagetext is displayed whenever a user edits a talk page and can provide basic information as to the purpose of the talk page and how it should be used along with a link to the help page. MediaWiki:Newarticletext is more complicated as it provides information relevant to the namespace etc. where the user is creating the new page. Both messages probably need further reformatting for Wikiversity but even in their current form, I would suggest that they make {{btp}} redundant. It is a much more straightforward means of providing information to users and doesn't require us to create every possible talk page with simply an explanation of the purpose of the page. Adambro 16:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur. The MediaWiki:Talkpagetext and MediaWiki:Newarticletext meet the needs sufficiently, thus {{btp}} and the blank talk pages could be deleted. On a related note, I created {{liquidThreads}} to place on talk pages that have relevant discussions on other talk pages. I never got much feedback on it. • CQ 17:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Done - consensus to delete the template and pages that were created with only that content, use system messages to provide same functionality, but also to continue exploring improvements and usability at the links provided above. --mikeu ^talk 13:49, 7 July 2009 (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.

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)

delete - per request --mikeu ^talk 20:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Rename to "Alexander the Great", add a welcome header and keep. Emesee 21:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete. No active contributors or purpose at this time. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 06:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete --Swift 05:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't look like it will magic itself into a learning resource any time soon. Adambro 10:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Done deleted --mikeu ^talk 21:14, 8 July 2009 (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.

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)

Delete It may be a legitimate topic, but it's not currently a legitimate project, and hasn't been for over a year. It can be created again when someone's ready to do something with it. Until then, it serves no purpose. Creating stubs serves a purpose in Wikipedia, but doesn't here. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 04:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The link is dead; I've removed it. There is now no content - delete. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete --mikeu ^talk 12:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete: No content. --Swift 05:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete No useful content. Doesn't look like it will magic itself into a learning resource any time soon. Adambro 10:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Done It has, since its creation in September 2007 never had anything beyond a single link which no longer seems to be working. As such, this page doesn't have any useful content and so deleting this doesn't harm the possibility that a useful educational resource might at some point in the future. The existence of a page with merely a {{welcome and expand}} is unlikely to do much to increase the likelihood of a useful resource being developed, even if this could potentially be an appropriate topic for Wikiversity. Adambro 18:52, 8 July 2009 (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.

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)

 Comment All the pages in Category:Earth Stations are now only in Category:Science fiction and Category:Game design. CQ 01:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Done the empty category is now deleted. --mikeu ^talk 02:11, 16 July 2009 (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 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)

Move to topic or main namespace (probably main) and keep. Emesee 21:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with a rename, but we would need to verify the copyright status or remove the quoted material. There is no confirmation that the author is aware of the use of this text at wikiversity. --mikeu ^talk 12:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Done I've blanked the copyright text and replaced with a link to the original. A confirmation from the author that the material is released under a compatible copyright is required if the text is to be restored. --mikeu ^talk 02:36, 16 July 2009 (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 belive that this page is not a learning resource, and its more like an attack page. I was thinking to delete it on sight, but reconsidered, to hear opinions of other people as well, including the page's creator. --Gbaor 19:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Clearly not a learning resource and no apparent prospect of it becoming one. Looks like a copy and paste from w:Pan-Arabism at some point in time. Adambro 08:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Rubbish! Deleting it makes Wikiversity users seem bigoted. We should RESPECT other's views; there's a plethora of pages on here which might cause offence to some, but deleting them makes us seem like bigots. If you people had bothered to read it all you'd realise it isn't attacking anyone, as it has reffered to Arabists as radicals many times. Keep it. - Saad92 15:00, 02 July 2009 (GMT)

•  Comment This seems to be a cut and paste of an old version of w:Pan-Arabism. Whatever the outcome of this discussion, we will need to address licensing. Generally, we need to use Import: to preserve the edit history of pages that are copied from wikipedia to preserve attribution. --mikeu ^talk 22:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment This is not in its current form an obvious learning activity or project (and doesn't seem to be linked to any related such project), so its difficult to seem how it fits the scope of WV. It seems to be an "article" in which case the content would belong better on Wikipedia. Given its length/complexity/potential for controversy this could take a lot of work. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• This article is very biased and one sided. This is a very negative representation of Arab culture. (The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.203.167.86 (talk • contribs) .) (Copied from Talk:Arabism by --mikeu ^talk 00:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC))

• This page is full of unsubstantial, rumor-based, conspiracy-minded, hate-fueled, racially subjugated, bull. I recommend its deletion as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raymanaryani (talk • contribs) 20:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC) (Copied from Talk:Arabism by --mikeu ^talk 00:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC))

• Delete The content of this page is far too biased to rework into an objective learning project. --mikeu ^talk 01:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Done This encyclopedia article has not been developed into a wikiversity learning resource since the request for deletion. Also, it is better to use Special:Import when copying pages from wikipedia to preserve the editing history. There is no indication of how this article would be developed into a resource that fits within the scope of the wikiversity mission. There are valid claims that the content is biased and some of the content falls within the scope of an attack page. --mikeu ^talk 02:25, 16 July 2009 (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 had a template for speedy deletion with a reason of "Advertisement, clearly no educational content" but it was contested at Talk:We Have Found Him. Please comment. --mikeu ^talk 01:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Not a learning resource and no prospect of it becoming one. Adambro 10:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Other options could be if its 'facts' then Wikipedia (although I doubt it would survive in this first-person format) or shift to user's page. But as it stands, it strikes me as a personal ("I have found him"?) rather than public learning project. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete this looks more like a promotion than a learning project. --mikeu ^talk 21:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Done speedy delete, after all. --mikeu ^talk 02:18, 16 July 2009 (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.