Jump to content

Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion/Archives/1

Add links
From Wikiversity
Filing cabinet icon You are examining an archive of past discussions for transparent review by inquisitive participants.
Please ask questions and share your thoughts on the current discussion page.

GaryGoldstein - DELETED

Not sure why (or how) it was created, but it deffinitly should not exist. -- Trevor MacInnis 04:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Pages created after importation from wikibooks - DELETED

REASON -- Matteo 21:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • ARGUMENTS - The Process I would like to use is:
  1. Direct links in wikibooks away from redirects in wikiversity b:Category:Wikiversity Moved Pages
  2. Check the redirect pages for pages that link to it and correct the links.
  3. RfD the pages that are redirects

This seems logical to me - any objections? Cormaggio 15:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

we should add the/a template(+category) Redirects for Deletion Matteo 19:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and be bold. No longer needed redirects can be marked with {{Delete}} for deletion. -- sebmol ? 07:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do stars look like up closer - DELETED

Trying to not bit the newbie, so I'm proposing What do stars look like up closer here. Nice that 5th graders are editing, though.--Rayc 00:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Web Design:ICAB5180A Integrate database with a website - DELETED

REASON: This page seems to be a test edit by an IP. It contains no valuable context. -- J.Steinbock 20:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yup. try a google test on that code at the beginning, its non-sence.  Heltec  talk 
I've deleted the page. In the future, if you find such obvious nonsense just use {{delete}}. sebmol ? 20:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Service community (deleted)

Another cross-namespace redirect. All incoming links have been repointed (by hand .. as I'm too lazy to get AWB to work on wv :P) after the page was moved out of mainspace, save for two links from Wikiversity talk:Service where context was rather relevant. The only advantage I could see to keeping this redirect would be convenience for those who are used to it, but I still think we should avoid using cross-namespace redirects where we can. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

deleted per nom
sebmol ? 19:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Plp (deleted)

This template really doesn't make any sense--it's supposed to be used to tag "Proposed learning projects," but such a thing does not exist to my knowledge. Anyone can create a learning project with no need to propose it or seek approval to create it, although this template seems to suggest that there's some proposed project process. As I can't see any real use for this template, I'd like to propose that it be deleted. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a paradox. You can only use the template when the page exists, but if it exists, it's no longer proposed. Might be useful in the future if we start setting some standards about when Learning projects start, but not now.--Rayc 06:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
deleted per nom
sebmol ? 19:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orientation (deleted)

Add to that list Orientation. Cross-namespace redirect resulting from my moving project-oriented material out of the mainspace. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

deleted per nom
in the future, please consider using {{delete}} for cases which do not need discussion
sebmol ? 19:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would have, but I got screamed at the last time I tagged a cross-namespace redirect for deletion, so I figured it best to just bring them all here for discussion :D. Sorry. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean_Engineering_and_Naval_Architecture (deleted)

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Ocean_Engineering_and_Naval_Architecture Topic Topic:Ocean_Engineering_and_Naval_Architecture already exists. --Remi0o 07:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gone. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Precursors of Chemistry (-1800) (deleted)

Matt McTague is the king of the world!!!!

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Precursors_of_Chemistry_%28-1800%29

Was speedy deleted by Sebmol --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

from User:Mlanaduncan (deleted)

these are all available for deletion. they are name changes to remove the + signs.

Done. Cormaggio talk 13:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

REASON:A close to direct quote from hitchhikers guide to the galaxy (I checked, its from book 2 pg.37). Non-sense and copyright infringement.--  Heltec  talk  01:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • ARGUMENTS -
Well, it's our only philosophy learning project, and it's a deep one. HGttG might be a good starting place, but the copyrighted text should be removed. --Rayc 07:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted the page linked to here, as well as a duplicate page (The Question), because they contain copyrighted text. (and also because this discussion has been open for over a month without a decision :S) --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mejan the Snowman (deleted)

I nominated this for deleteion. Am I right in thinking that Wikiversity isn't the place for this kind of thing? Xania 14:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has any attempt been made to Assume Good Faith and contact the author? --JWSchmidt 14:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is someone attempting to analyze cartoon scripts for storyboarding practice. If you follow the "bulgy" in this file found by following the IP address The_Adventures_of_Simon_Douglas:_The_Genuis you find a lesson on 3D Storyboarding. All the contributions made under this IP address seem related to concise outlines of cartoons and analysis of characters and basic themes or plots. Perhaps if we left a note asking the user to register and use their talk pages and sub pages for personal notes and exercises we would eventually gain a knowledge participant vs. irritating someone by deleting their efforts with a note it is not relevant to Wikiversity. Mirwin 10:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this, along with others added by this user (contribs): Helen Prince, Helen Prince (character), My Gym Partner SItes, List of recurring kid characters on Ned's Declassified, Mejan and Pepe, The 3 Teenagers, Chip Skylark's Holiday Hits, The Adventures of Simon Douglas: The Genuis, Harried Treasure, A Christmas Film, Fred's Rule Of Dumb, and Stopp N Hollywood, are probably intended for Wikipedia. I've added a note on their talk pages, requesting clarification from the author - as has Mirwin on some. Cormaggio talk 19:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Nice detective work there, Mirwin. So, should we leave them be until the author replies (which could be indefinitely), or what? Cormaggio talk 00:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it could be categorized as a learning project under... it seems like a manga or anime piece... animation??? --Remi0o 12:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly would prefer for the author to give us feedback before we do any further work on these pages. I'm still not convinced of their usefulness - but would not like to dismiss them out of hand either. Cormaggio talk 14:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what can be seen at Wikipedia, the person editing from 68.37.205.18 does not discuss their edits. --JWSchmidt 14:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd speedily delete those articles. All cut and paste. --HappyCamper 14:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought. We wait. --HappyCamper 14:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - thanks for that - I didn't realise that the same stuff was on Wikipedia (eg w:List of recurring kid characters on Ned's Declassified). But yes, there's no harm in waiting for a bit - but I don't want to get swamped by loads of muck - this is quite a prolific and specialised user! Cormaggio talk 15:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've waited long enough, and the user has not responded to the messages. I have deleted the pages in question --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Game Maker (closed)

Contesting scope tag, not sure if those are to be brought here. (Prod template on wikipedia are only brought to AfD if the template is removed and then contested). We have School:Computer Simulation and Game Design as an example of the school it is in, and Audacity as an example of the type of page it is.--Rayc 17:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why this page was marked for deletion. One of the goals of Wikiversity is to review and provide links to existing learning resources outside of Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 15:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I de-tagged it as being outside the scope of Wikiversity. I'm fairly sure this can be kept. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
discussion closed
sebmol ? 18:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kincachoo (deleted)

This page I happened to have come across while skimming through the random page selection, it has no content whatsoever and I don't think such a word exsists, I really don't think we need this article. Its been here nearly two months. Student Galaxy 17:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like something was created that would be better on the tree of life or a wikipedia page. Unless it how to take care of Kincachoo (which might not actually exist), it doesn't belong here.--Rayc 01:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
deleted per request
sebmol ? 18:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Briefsism (deleted)

It's either a hoax, or someone making a joke article, or an obscure religion, but whether it's useful here, well, it's anyone's guess! -- 1qx 17:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a wikipedia article in any case. Best to delete it and let them recreate it in wikipedia, and then it can be deleted under hoax--Rayc 20:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Cormaggio beep 22:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Multiple points of view/Wikimedia Garbage Detail (deleted)

Cross namespace redirect.. do we have that dumb rule here too? I thought it was only enforced in enwikipedia because they were running out of space and could foresee when a redirect could get turned into an article.--Rayc 07:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The namespaces each serve very particular roles, and in particular, crossing projectspace with mainspace just gives me the eeberjeebers. Projectspace is for metadata, where random WikiProjects such as this one are appropriate, whilst the mainspace is for educational content only. By redirecting from the mainspace to projectspace we completely shatter this divide, and, while such redirects may be helpful to our editors, they are not helpful to our everyday readers who come looking for lessons and get "Wikimedia Garbage Detail." It's important to keep in mind that the site search, by default, searches only in the mainspace, meaning that a search may well turn up redirects such as this one, which is really just a horrid embarassment to all who have helped to build Wikiversity--like a gaping whole in the set staring directly into backstage. We need to think of redirects in terms of how they are most useful and least confusing to our typical readers, not to ourselves. So, I'd say delete all cross-namespace redirects from mainspace to project and userspace. And no, enwiki is not deleting cross-namespace redirects because they're running out of article space :D -- rather, it's for some of the reasons I mention above, and many, many others. Before discussing the cross-namespace issue, I'd strongly encourage everyone to take a look at pages such as w:Wikipedia talk:Cross-namespace redirects, w:WP:RfD, and many other related pages on enwiki. AmiDaniel 07:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of completeness, let it be said that the various WP: and CAT: shortcuts on English Wikipedia are technically also cross namespace redirects. I've deleted Wikimedia Garbage Detail and I have no problems seeing the other one gone too. sebmol ? 13:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, yes, but WP: and CAT: have become pseudonamespaces through popular usage, and though some are occassionally deleted, you'll never hear anyone calling for their deletion. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there would be allot of confusion if Main Page was deleted, so not all Cross-namespace redirects should go. --Rayc 03:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*blinks* Except, naturally, those excluded by common sense :). AmiDaniel (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both deleted. Cormaggio beep 22:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KARL MARX PAGE (deleted)

PLEASE DELETE THE KARL MARX PAGE: Karl_Marx_Page

It was moved to Karl Marx - do you still think it should be deleted? Why? Cormaggio beep 10:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary redirect deleted. Cormaggio beep 22:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese/Vocabulary (deleted)

Page histories merged and subsequently deleted. Cormaggio beep 22:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Topic:Psychology (deleted)

This page redirects to School:Psychology. I found five pages that still link to Topic, and converted all of them to link to School. Deleting is a minor neatness I know, but it frees Topic:Psychology to be used properly if needed. Thanks John Havey 02:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

 Unnecessary redirect deleted. --digital_me 23:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several pages regarding Judaism (1 of 2 deleted)

Both will perhaps be created again later, but right now this is just clutter which is not being maintained and has no use at all. I intend to remove both from Topic:Jewish studies. --Daniel575 | (Talk) 08:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Topic:Jewish Mysticism-Kabbalah deleted, Topic:Jewish prayer left as it has content. --digital_me 04:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.


There is no licensing information for these files.

JW has already placed request for licensing information on the originator's discussion page with a warning that the files will be deleted if it is not forthcoming. Mirwin 22:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these are candidates for Template:GFDL-presumed. --JWSchmidt 22:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An_intorduction_to_Data_Structures_and_Algorithms

Page has no content and is obviously abandoned because of typo in title. Mirwin 05:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. McCormack 06:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creative_information_artist

Page content has been merged into a subpage of Lunar Boom Town project, I created most or all of the content for Lunar Boom Town. It is now redundant and should be deleted. Mirwin 06:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. McCormack 06:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Participants (moved/archived)

Note: I moved the old contents of Portal:Participants to Portal:Participants/Old and that page is now in Category:History of Wikiversity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JWSchmidt (talk • contribs) 17:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

REASON -- Similar to Wikiversity:Participants, except all (or most, at least) of the users on this page come from Wikibooks, and so it is not only useless, but also out of date. While the page could be altered to become something useful, as it stands it should be deleted—anyone that comes to it would get the impression that it's meant to be a (quite defunct) list of who's active on Wikiversity. The Jade Knight 21:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • strong Support for the same reasons listed above. [1] The information here is even more useless than Wikiversity:Participants and can not even be salvaged by something like my dynamic page suggestion above. Just about the only way to salvage it is to rename (out of portal: space) and tag it with Template:Historical as an archive. In this case there is only one bot edit since 16:29, 18 July 2007.--mikeu 17:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Topic:Departament of Chinese culture, by Guo Britney (renamed/expanded)

Hi, I moved the page to the shorter Topic:Department of Chinese culture and will write the creator, if he wants to continue with it. What do you say ? ----Erkan Yilmaz (Wikiversity:Chat, wiki blog) 07:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: is this an open deletion debate topic? It does not look like the template was ever included in the page. I'm fine with keeping the renamed version (not sure what category to assign it to, but it needs one or some association with a shool or parent topic.)--mikeu 17:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BMCs (deleted)

Bunch of articles from BMC02 to BMC30 (for complete list see Category:Requests for Deletion), except BMC01, BMC04 and BMC23, where could be some useful content. First I wanted to mark them for speedy deletion, but may be these articles have some purpose (not clear to me, however) -- Gbaor 13:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created a new Category:Biochemistry Exam Study Guide and added all the articles to it. It appears that this study guide was a class project last Sept. 2007 but only a few of the students actually added content to the pages. One possible solution is to rename the pages with content using a more desriptive title, and delete the empty placeholder files. --mikeu talk 14:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this doesn't seem to call for mass-deletion, but rather a project to make useful resources out of 'dumped' material (or material which was used as part of a course). In cases where there was clear collaborative activity, and for the purposes of preserving that somehow, it might be an idea to either 1) keep those pages as is, and then fork/merge relevant content into new pages with different educational goals, or 2) start refactoring-and-merging, while leaving a note on the context of the page's history (somewhere on page or talk page) and a link to the version at which point it was refactored. Does that make sense? Any better ideas? Cormaggio talk 18:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I looked in a bit more and I see there wasn't really that much collaborative activity - as admitted by one of the participants [2]. There really are only three useful pages, as you point out - we can tag these as historical, and perhaps fork into new materials, but the rest could easily be deleted. (I'm thinking we can also use cases like this to build policy and practical guidelines for dealing with materials geared towards specific groups which have since disappeared.) Cormaggio talk 18:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted all of the empty pages. Only the ones with content (BMC01, BMC04 and BMC23 in Category:Biochemistry Exam Study Guide) remain. They should probably be renamed or reworked into something more generic. --mikeu talk 02:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The empty page BCM11 and BCM12 have also been deleted. --mikeu talk 18:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Master in Geology (moved to userspace)

This page is irrelevant, as well as being a stub with useless biographical information. --Laleena 13:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page was moved to here - also see previous comments here. Afterwards Master in Geology was deleted, so it can be created new. ----Erkan Yilmaz (Wikiversity:Chat, wiki blog) 14:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:202.163.95.225 (was Master in Geology)

The page Master in Geology was tagged for deletion but never listed here. It was then moved to User:202.163.95.225. I will close this in one week if there are no objections with a decision of moved since that seems to take care of the objection to the original page. --mikeu talk 18:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Done Removed Template:Deletion request from User:202.163.95.225 --mikeu talk 22:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English to Spanish (deleted)

REASON: Doesn't seem to ever have had anything significant on it, and is possibly vandalism. Doesn't seem to be anything but a joke -- Mathboy965 00:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • ARGUMENTS -
Support, created quite some time ago by an IP address that only had a single edit - this one. Countrymike 05:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This one could be semi-speedy deleted also :) --Gbaor 06:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Perhaps it could be kept as a welcome and expand and be made into a help desk of sorts for people who would like to have an english phrase translated to spanish. --Remi 02:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. --mikeu talk 03:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is acknowledged to be a copy of http://www.pinkpractice.co.uk/quaire.htm, stated to be "Reprinted with permission via email". The original contributor, mehmetaergun, asked on the talk page to "pls let me know if this is problematic", on 2007-02-09. Cormaggio asked about the permission for the article on mehmetaergun's talk page on 2007-04-19, and mikeu replied on the article talk page on 2007-12-16, but mehmetaergun's actually hasn't edited anything since 2007-03-21. I suggest deleting the page and replacing the links to it by external links to the source page. Benja 12:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete There has been plenty of time with no response and we can't keep the page without knowing that it is covered by the proper license. We can always undelete if/when we know that is can be used here. --mikeu talk 18:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The questionnaire is actually all over the web, and the author (Martin Rochlin) is now deceased. I think it's probably best to link out to it, and to quote/discuss it within relevant pages in Wikiversity. (Delete.) Cormaggio talk 14:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Let's remove the survey from the page, and replace with a link. Then add instructions to the reader to comment and discuss. --mikeu talk 16:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Benja 00:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Done The Questionnaire has been removed, but there is still a link to it. --mikeu talk 22:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatives to High School Partying (rename and edit)

Added by an anonymous editor who added nothing else. Does not seem to be anything more than a gag. --McCormack 07:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --Gbaor 09:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong wiki - do we really need to discuss this? Cormaggio talk 15:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK - discussion over then! I'll semi-speedily delete it. --McCormack 17:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As a counter point, it seems that this could be something that might be handed out at a high-school/early college as a sort "prevention" (don't do drugs, don't suffer the negative effects of alcohol, don't have a baby!). Considering that Wikiversity is not meant to be solely geared towards higher education and presuming that this is not a copyright violation, could resources like these perhaps have a place at Wikiversity? --Remi 02:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the author of this deleted article: A better place for this type of thing would be WikiHow [3]. StuRat 19:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Belated) Oppose - I agree with Remi. I don't think this was a gag. This is a serious concern at some schools. For example see the Late Night Fund to provide non-alcoholic activities for students. See also 'O'Reilly Factor' segment claims to uncover U.-sponsored 'debauchery' at Saturday party for why... --mikeu talk 03:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't dismiss this article on the general gist of what it was talking about (which I agree is a very valid topic) - but more on the grounds of its orientation to just one area of the US - eg.: "In Clay County there are plenty of options for food and movie theatres. If you want a quick meal there are plenty of fast food restaurants: McDonald’s, Burger King, Taco Bell, etc." It seemed to be more oriented to a Clay County wiki (if there is such a thing.) I'd be in favour of a more generally applicable article - perhaps it could be restored, and encouraged to be relevant to at least high schools across the US? Cormaggio talk 14:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Different IP, but looks like the same person created Missouri Teens: Alternatives to Partying. I agree that we should encourage expansion so it is not location specific. --mikeu talk 19:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Done Both Alternatives to High School Partying and Missouri Teens: Alternatives to Partying now redirect to Alternatives to partying which has had some of the specific geographic references removed. --mikeu talk 23:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SMU (deleted)

(South Mediterranean University)

I add this here to raise discussion about our Wikiversity:Outreach policy and its implications. The above page, as it stands, looks like advertising (which it pretty much is). However, we say on our outreach page that we would allow a page on Wikiversity for institutions we were doing some outreach to/from. This was proposed so that the institution could give some information about themselves, and to organise their Wikiversity outreach activities. I personally think the above page goes too far down the line of advertising, but I am aware that "the line" is not at all defined. I would outline a first stab as:

  • Outreach pages must be categorised as outreach pages
  • Outreach pages must be used as organising pages for clear outreach activities (or intentions to organise such activities)
  • Outreach pages may only give minimal (one paragraph) introductions to their institution which conform to NPOV (ie would be acceptable as first paragraph introductions on Wikipedia)

Comments on this, the above page, or anything else that might be related? Cormaggio talk 15:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. WV should not be or contain directories of institutions or academics' visiting cards, unless these are heavily involved with producing content for WV. As an aside, I wonder what outreach has ever achieved for Wikiversity? There are many far more important things to do. --McCormack 16:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wouldn't want to get into judging resources/activities on the grounds that there may be "more important things to do". (We can support many types of initiatives - in fact I think we must if we are to be true to our "experimental" nature - and I think outreach is an extremely valuable one). However, there is no indication here as to what their outreach proposal is, and so it becomes indistinguishable from advertising. Maybe we can use it as an example for what is unacceptable, and make another for what would be ok, and have them as resources for Wikiversity:Outreach? Cormaggio talk 20:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep - Maybe move it to user namespace as it is (i.e. User:South Mediterranean University), or since it is in the main namespace then just remove what comes across as advertising so it is more factual, or even just keep as is for now and see how or if it evolves. --Remi 18:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhere I read that it was Wikimedia policy not to allow multi-person accounts - perhaps connected with privacy? --McCormack 19:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyright violation. The three sections of text are from: [4], [5] and [6] Also: Image:Dean.gif as copyvio [7] and no permission from subject of photo. Also: Image:Mediterranean School of Business.jpg as trademark logo with no fair use rationale. --mikeu talk 15:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See also same material at w:South Mediterranean University which I have tagged as a copyvio. [8] And Image:Mediterranean_School_of_Business.jpg which has already been deleted. --mikeu talk 15:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also Image:Logo-MSB-couleurs juin 2006.jpg as logo unused in any pages with no fair use rationale. --mikeu talk 14:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Done Deleted page and images as copyright violation. --mikeu talk 22:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi (deleted)

REASON: This article may be outside the scope of Wikiversity, being an encyclopedia article and adding nothing of educational value to the equivalent article already on Wikipedia. -- McCormack 15:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • ARGUMENTS - Thanks for your concern. I would appreciate, if you kindly give me some time as I am new to WV and still learning, I will try my level best to make my article as per WV. --Iamsaa 06:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks like a Wikipedia article to me (actually, it looks like a copy-paste of an article). Wikiversity is not an encyclopedia. --SB_Johnny | PA! 10:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • But the original WP article is different, if similar. I checked ;-) I think it would be more polite to give Iamsaa a chance to agree with deletion of his page before we do anything. McCormack 11:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oppose Deletion, particularly Speedy Deletion. The Initiator of the Page has indicated that Time is needed to bring the Page into Conformance with Policy. Let the Page be Retained and later Revisited to see what Progress has been made. -- Dionysios (talk), Date: 2007-08-10 (August 10, 2007) Time: 1400 UTC
          • I've left a brief message on Iamsaa's talk page about the purposes of WV. I don't really see any way this page could be brought into line with WV's aims, but as a matter of politeness to Iamsaa he should have a chance. I'd suggest waiting a week or so to see if the page is developed any further. McCormack 14:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thank you, McCormack, for your Civility. An attempt will be made to bring the Page into line with the Aims of Wikiversity. -- Dionysios (talk), Date: 2007-08-10 (August 10, 2007) Time: 1659 UTC
              • Thank you, I am very much grateful to all members of WV, as I requested above to grant me some time as presently I am busy with my exam and thus unable to work any further on my article on WV. Meanwhile, May I request you guys to please help me by editing my article? --Iamsaa 06:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Perhaps you could give us some guidance as to how this article could be turned into an educational resource? McCormack 07:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Oppose Deletion. At 09:05:11 on Today's Date Initiator of the Page made a Revision such that there is no longer any Basis for the Original Objection to the Page: that it is "an encyclopedia article and adding nothing of educational value to the equivalent article already on Wikipedia". Accordingly the Deletion Request should be Removed; and those involved with the Page should be accorded the opportunity to develop the the Resource as they are able. As indicated above by the Initiator of this Resource, Time will be needed to fully develop the Page; but, absent some New Objection, the Deletion Request should be Removed. -- Dionysios (talk), Date: 2007-08-15 (August 15, 2007) Time: 1912 UTC
                    • Thanks, I will try my level best to meet your expectation but these days I am busy in my exams. --Iamsaa 13:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Oppose Deletion. Again, there is no longer any Basis for this Deletion Request. Your Servant would Remove the Request himself, but his view is that as a General Rule those who place such Requests should be the ones to Remove them. If this is not done, Perhaps Administration should become involved. This Participant is slowly be surely becoming convinced that Deletionism can be a problem. The Decoration of Pages with unwarranted {{dr}} Header Templates can be an obvious Distraction. Those who place Deletion Requests should follow the Arguments and be quick to Remove their Requests if the Reason for the Request no longer Applies. Again, absent some New Objection, this Deletion Request should be Removed. -- Dionysios (talk), Date: 2007-08-17 (August 17, 2007) Time: 1605 UTC
Many thanks for your thoughts. However I respectfully disagree, and I now strongly support the deletion of this page. It's true the author responded to the challenge to make the page acceptable, however to my mind, he completely failed. There is nothing educational about the page - it's still just an encyclopedic biography. The page needs to actually have something about it that makes it a learning resource. Here are some examples of things which would make it educational, but which are lacking...
  • Integrated into an educational resource of larger granularity (e.g. a course, series of pages).
  • Explicit internal educational structure (e.g. start by revising the background of relevant Islamic thought, place the new thinker in their context, summarise main ideas in a memorable manner, etc).
  • Interactive content such as closed questions (e.g. quiz) or open questions for discussion; activity/project suggestions.
  • Classroom materials for printing, cutting out, photocopying, displaying.
  • Some kind of social constructivist element - e.g. multiple participants discussing or building something as they engage in learning.
  • Explicit reference and relevance to related educational material in related study areas.
Above comments added by: Dionysios
My comments were non-exhaustive and suggestive (as help to the author); you took them to be exhaustive and prescriptive. McCormack 08:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps one could be excused for taking the suggestions as prescriptions, at least in a general sense, so long as the Deletion Request continues to decorate the page. After all, it seems as though compliance with some prescription or other must take place before the attack on this page is going to end; and McCormack has suggested that he doesn't really see any way this page could be brought into line with the aims of Wikiversity. -- Dionysios (talk), Date: 2007-08-29 (August 29, 2007) Time: 1328 UTC
  • Summary of opinions: this has got rather long, so I'll summarise the opinions.
    1. Thunderhead proposed a speedy delete (which I removed, as I thought consensus was better).
    2. SB_Johnny made a comment vaguely in favour of deletion.
    3. McCormack (me) is in favour of deletion, but thinks more consensus would be good.
    4. Dionysios is strongly opposed to deletion.
    5. Iamsaa (the original author) seems to appreciate the short-comings but is too busy with exams to do anything right now.
    Proposed course of action: wait for further users to express opinions. The key question would seem to be: does this page have any educational value which is not and cannot be supplied by the Wikipedia article on the same topic? The deletion tag should remain on the page either until we have a clear consensus or until the page has been modified sufficiently to satisfy those who favoured deletion.
    -- McCormack 06:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Undersigned has removed the Deletion Request Template from the Page and suggests that it remain off of the Page for One (1) Year, long enough to see if the Author ever returns. Combat Deletionism. -- Dionysios (talk), Date: 2007-09-11 (September 11, 2007) Time: 2044 UTC
I disagree strongly with this move as it is against the prevailing consensus. This move is antagonistic. -- McCormack 20:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for replacing the tag, Dionysios. -- McCormack 08:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if we should have a template that's somewhere between {{delete}} and our "welcome and" templates ({{Welcome and expand}} and {{Welcome and advise}}). Perhaps this should be something like "The educational context of this page/resource is unclear. Please help make this page/resource more useful in a particular educational context". We still then need to provide a clear tutorial or guide as to what ways material can be made more clearly educational (as opposed to simply informational). Cormaggio talk 08:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with and expand your proposal, for a whole variety of new templates advising on weird content. e.g. {{Welcome and WP-differ}}) with "It is unclear how this page adds educational value to the WP article on the same topic. Please help emphasize the added educational value offered by this page". McCormack 08:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose deletion. If the time, energy, comments and questions present here were added to the discussion page the originator or others who find the page might be inspired to improve it a bit. Mirwin 22:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The page is not a learning resource. Not one edit has occured since this deletion debate was active. There is no indication of how the page might be turned into a learning resource.--mikeu 20:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New discussion

Thanks for your work. However, I still have trouble in seeing how this fits into an educational schema. What is this person's place in the study of Islam (as I presume it is meant to do)? Also, the language is biased - if it is to be kept as part of the study of Islam, then it should be either substantially rewritten in parts, or its bias should be disclosed. Cormaggio talk 14:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks quite a bit like an encyclopedia article at Wikipedia, except with maybe more than average point of view ("Short sighted religious clergy...") and maybe less than average citations. --Remi 02:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See w:Talk:Riaz_Ahmed_Gohar_Shahi#The_purpose_of_Wikipedia and w:User:Asikhi. The first identifies Asikhi at wp as Press & Information Secretary for Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam and he requests that wp "restrict the rights of amendments for this page to only for the Iamsaa (Creator of this page)" Also see this diff from w:User:Iamsaa which identifies the user as "Office Bearer of International Spiritual Movement Anjuman." Both userpages (above) are "articles" (forks?) on the religion and founder. A disclosure of bias is required if this page is to be kept. (and I don't think it should be kept) Discussions about bias and w:WP:OWN have been going on since June 2007 and the two authors do not seem to accept that pages on a wiki can be edited by anyone, and that they can not control the content as they would wish to. See also w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gohar Shahi. I propose speedy deletion. --mikeu talk 13:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis of what I've seen (and thanks for these links), I'm finding it difficult to see this article itself being used in an educational capacity, or have faith in its authors to steer it in this direction. Even with a disclosure of bias, I think we should determine a given standard for such material - especially around religious studies - and the suggestions in the 'Theistic Satanism' section about a policy for religious content sound useful (as well as political, I would suggest - any others?). But even without such a policy, this page seems to be overly oriented to encyclopedic content (and the Wikipedia article seems to be serving a better purpose) and we are trying to develop other relevant policies about distinguishing WV and WP at eg Wikiversity:Learning resources. If this page were to be made useful, I would recommend reducing it to a stub biography, adding a link to Wikipedia (and selected other resources), and linking to pages which study this branch of Islam. Cormaggio talk 14:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"any others?" <-- Qur'an is the word of God Project contains the statement "This is a project that aims to collect scientific evidences to the claim that the Qur'an is the word of God or that it is the most probable to be so among any other book that their followers claim it to be the word of God." (emph. in original) This raises some tricky questions about bias, disclosures and the open nature of exploring ideas in a wiki. I can see the possibility of an interesting debate developing along these lines, but not within the current structure of that page. See also Talk:Science as religion and the reaction to it at Einstein's Theory of Gravity as religion. We need to raise the bar on these debates. --mikeu talk 14:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I tend to see such pages as opening up the possibility of a debate around knowledge and epistemology. Even if (and often because) there are sometimes strange statements in materials, the opportunity is always there to develop critiques of the page - and thereby develop an understanding of different perspectives and contexts. I think perhaps part of "raising the bar" on debates around religion, politics etc would be to actively invite critique on any such resource. It might be useful to develop a set of questions that could then be asked of any resource, eg: "What are the assumptions inherent in this material?"; "How does this material facilitate the building of understanding of its topic, and on what basis?"; "How does this material conflict with other materials (or what do other materials have to say on the matter)?"... Should we move this discussion to somewhere like Wikiversity:Religious and political material (or Wikiversity:Points of view)? Cormaggio talk 17:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I would recommend reducing it to a stub biography" <- A biography is no less a duplication of other wikimedia projects than an encyclopedia article. Wikiversity:Wikiversity_project_proposal#What_Wikiversity_is_not I'm all for giving someone time to show that a subject can be developed into a learning resource, but the PR person has a clear conflict of interest and shows little inclination to do this. "Should we move this discussion" <- We now have Wikiversity:Draft policy on religious content. --mikeu talk 21:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These authors have been making a concerted effort to spam wikimedia sites with biased information and they have a clear conflict of interest between promoting the subject versus creating a balanced and informative learning project. Here are some of the links that I found after just a few minutes of searching, but there are more, see also above:

I will close the RFD with a decision of DELETE if there are no objections within one week. --mikeu talk 17:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Done --mikeu talk 23:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/1&oldid=1880960"