Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion
|
We welcome and appreciate civil discussion of requests to delete or undelete pages when reasonable objections are made or are likely, the advice in Wikiversity:Deletions is followed, and other options have failed. A good attitude is to explain what you have tried, ask for help or advice from fellow Wikiversity participants on what to do now, keep an open mind, accept any community consensus, and focus on how pages can be improved. Finding ways to improve pages is the preferred outcome of any discussion and consensus here. Pages should always be kept when reasonable concerns are adequately addressed. Reasons and responses should be specific and relate to Wikiversity policy or scope in some way, kept brief, and stated in a positive or neutral way. Vague reasons ("out of scope", "disruptive") may be ignored. A clear consensus should emerge before archiving a request. Often discussion takes a week or more to reach a clear consensus. Remember to add {{dr}} to the top of pages nominated for deletion. You can put "keep", "delete", or "neutral" at the beginning of your response, but consensus is established by discussion and reasoning, not mere voting. |
How to begin discussion
[edit source]
|
Deletion requests
If an article should be deleted and does not meet speedy deletion criteria, please list it here. Include the title and reason for deletion. If it meets speedy deletion criteria, just tag the resource with {{Delete|reason}} rather than opening a deletion discussion here.
If an article has been deleted, and you would like it undeleted, please list it here. Please try to give as close to the title as possible, and list your reasons for why it should be restored. The first line after the header should be: Undeletion requested
Arguably, this is not good enough for the mainspace; I have no objections to this being in the draft space or the userspace. Issues: 1) The page appears to be an original research but is not marked as such; 2) it introduces the term "decadic number" as an original terminological invention, as far as I can tell, but does not disclose this to be the case; 3) the term "decadic number" is unfortunate since what is meant is something like "infinite decadic number"; 4) even the term "number" is questionable since it is not clear how these so-called numbers can have anything to do with quantity (but then, complex numbers arguably also do not express quantity, or a single quantity); 5) no attempt to formally define what a decadic number is made; this so-called decadic number appears to be a mapping from positive integers to the set of digits 0-9, to be interpreted from right to left; 6) e.g. "Addition of the decadic numbers is the same as that of the integers" is clearly untrue: integers are finite discrete quantities; ditto for "Multiplication works the same way in the decadic numbers as in the integers".
Perhaps this can be salvaged rather than moved out of mainspace. The first thing to do is add external sources dealing with the concept or state that this is original invention; and then, address the issues. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- As with Surreal numbers the choice is between userspace and a subspace where users could be encouraged to cooperate. Unlike Surreal numbers, I am unaware of any application in physics for this topic. The ideal place would be Discrete mathematics/Number theory because the Olympiads is a high school thing. I will contact the author about both pages--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 09:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- If the page should stay in mainspace, I see no reason why it could not stay at Decadic numbers; I don't see moving it around in mainspace as an improvement. But my position as explained above is that it is not fit for mainspace. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Decadic numbers and Surreal numbers have enough that they should be parallel subpages of the same page. I have suggested to the author that they should either create a top page, or find a top page and group these resources together.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 16:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- If the page should stay in mainspace, I see no reason why it could not stay at Decadic numbers; I don't see moving it around in mainspace as an improvement. But my position as explained above is that it is not fit for mainspace. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The page does not do anything that Wikipedia does not do better: Wikipedia: Rational number. The page contains unfilled tables that seemed to be intended to explain something, but since they are empty, explain nothing. The page has no further reading, revealing no attempt to find best complementary sources online, probably of much higher quality. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Now I see why you were kicked off Wiktionary. Wikiversity has a long and established tradition of allowing student efforts. This page is no worse that Student Projects/Major rivers in India, a page which I randomly selected from Student Projects. I am trying to recruit students to contribute to Wikiversity. Until the Wikiversity community changes its mind about allowing student projects, I will continue with that quest. I will change the template so as to not discourage a person clearly interested in teaching mathematics, and I want you to refrain from placing rfd templates on student efforts. Use {{subpagify}} instead.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 12:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- I was blocked in the English Wiktionary for "racism" and more. In the English Wiktionary, I often defended pages nominated for deletion and rather rarely nominated anything for deletion. The English Wiktionary has almost no useless pages and is the 2nd most often visited project after Wikipedia. By contrast, the English Wikiversity has very few useful pages, a state of affairs that I am trying to turn around, step by step, following processes and guidelines that I did nothing to establish: WV:RFD and WV:Deletions. That is as far as persons go (ad hominem); as far as process, I hoped here to have a discussion with editors about whether this nearly useless page (Rational numbers/Introduction) should be moved out of the mainspace, and unless consensus developed for my position, I stand no chance to prevail. Rational numbers/Introduction is not a "student project" in any sense of "project" but rather example of all-too-typical junk. Again, I do not decide, others do with me being only a single voice/input. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Now you are on the right track! Wikiversity might be in a transition period between allowing all sorts of pages, to morphing into a selective institution. But the process has to change from the top-down, not from the bottom by deleting one page at a time. When I say "top", I am referring not to the administrators, but to the community at large. At present, RFD has nothing near the quorum required to implement the changes you (and others) are seeking. Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 13:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- The only reasonable way going forward, to my mind anyway, is to follow WV:Deletions and not worry about the precedent of its countless violations. Since, should we take e.g. Relation between Electricity And Magnetism, existing since 2011, as an example of a page to be kept, then we must keep nearly everything. There are too many pages like that, and therefore, if we take their aggregate as a binding precedent to follow, we end up in trouble, unable to delete junk. It seems only fair to proceed according WV:Deletions, especially when using RFD process which gives potential opposition enough time to object. Such a procedure violates neither established guidelines nor processes; if it "violates" anything, then preexisting extreme lenience/tolerance toward junk, lenience that, as far as I know, was never codified into a guideline. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 13:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- No. Please don't use this page as an agenda for reforming Wikiversity. Go to the Colloquium or write an essay. Having said that, I did delete Creating Relation between Electricity And Magnetism because that follows both guidelines and established practice.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 13:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, lenience is given an advantage when pages are up for deletion (See Special:Permalink/2615245#Wikipedia's_deletion_policy for evidence that deletion requires somewhat of a super-majority.) But you are not calling for deletion of low quality pages. Instead you want them out of mainspace. We have room for compromise. But, as I said before: RFD is not the place to discuss this. If you want, I could take "Wikiversity:What-goes-where 2024" out of my user-space and we could discuss it there.Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- The only reasonable way going forward, to my mind anyway, is to follow WV:Deletions and not worry about the precedent of its countless violations. Since, should we take e.g. Relation between Electricity And Magnetism, existing since 2011, as an example of a page to be kept, then we must keep nearly everything. There are too many pages like that, and therefore, if we take their aggregate as a binding precedent to follow, we end up in trouble, unable to delete junk. It seems only fair to proceed according WV:Deletions, especially when using RFD process which gives potential opposition enough time to object. Such a procedure violates neither established guidelines nor processes; if it "violates" anything, then preexisting extreme lenience/tolerance toward junk, lenience that, as far as I know, was never codified into a guideline. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 13:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Now you are on the right track! Wikiversity might be in a transition period between allowing all sorts of pages, to morphing into a selective institution. But the process has to change from the top-down, not from the bottom by deleting one page at a time. When I say "top", I am referring not to the administrators, but to the community at large. At present, RFD has nothing near the quorum required to implement the changes you (and others) are seeking. Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 13:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- I was blocked in the English Wiktionary for "racism" and more. In the English Wiktionary, I often defended pages nominated for deletion and rather rarely nominated anything for deletion. The English Wiktionary has almost no useless pages and is the 2nd most often visited project after Wikipedia. By contrast, the English Wikiversity has very few useful pages, a state of affairs that I am trying to turn around, step by step, following processes and guidelines that I did nothing to establish: WV:RFD and WV:Deletions. That is as far as persons go (ad hominem); as far as process, I hoped here to have a discussion with editors about whether this nearly useless page (Rational numbers/Introduction) should be moved out of the mainspace, and unless consensus developed for my position, I stand no chance to prevail. Rational numbers/Introduction is not a "student project" in any sense of "project" but rather example of all-too-typical junk. Again, I do not decide, others do with me being only a single voice/input. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Undeletion requested.
Useful for formatting. Tule-hog (discuss • contribs) 04:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- There is a standard wiki syntax for the purpose. I therefore think the template is not required and of low value; it just adds another syntax. I yield to consensus or even plain 50% majority in this case. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 04:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- I now checked W:Template:Nowiki. It says, i.a., "The resulting tag will be processed as a real tag by further substitutions and transclusions, so this should not be used for documentation. Rather, it is used by metatemplates to generate nowiki tags." So it seems the primary reason for the template is metatemplating. If we want to have metatemplating in Wikiversity, the template would then be needed. Do we need or want that? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 05:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- See w:Template:Codenowiki. It's a convenient macro. Tule-hog (discuss • contribs) 10:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Covariant theory of gravitation
[edit source]My question is about the article Covariant theory of gravitation, which is empty now. The content of the article is at Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Covariant theory of gravitation. The Covariant theory of gravitation was recognized once again in last papers, such as Fedosin S.G. Lagrangian formalism in the theory of relativistic vector fields. International Journal of Modern Physics A, (2024). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X2450163X. Fedosin S.G. Generalized Four-momentum for Continuously Distributed Materials. Gazi University Journal of Science, Vol. 37, Issue 3, pp. 1509-1538 (2024). https://doi.org/10.35378/gujs.1231793. Fedosin S.G. What should we understand by the four-momentum of physical system? Physica Scripta, Vol. 99, No. 5, 055034 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1088/1402-4896/ad3b45.
So, is it possible to restore the content in the article Covariant theory of gravitation ? Fedosin (discuss • contribs)
- I'm not support staff, but unless Lexie78 has a different plan, I say remove the {{prod}} tag and improve how you see fit. Tule-hog (discuss • contribs) 16:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Unfinished projects
[edit source]Should unfinished resources remain in the mainspace? For example, Study of Genesis has not been worked on since 2008, and is not complete. If they should be moved, what period of inactivity should be considered (6 months, 1 year, 5 yrs, etc.)? Tule-hog (discuss • contribs) 16:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- This question is one of the most basic disagreements in the WikiSphere. On the one hand, an inclusionist would say that having 40% of a resource is more than 0% and hosting it indefinitely allows someone to come along and add the other 60% without starting from scratch. A deletionist would argue that having a lot of lo-grade material lowers the quality of the site in general and there's no reason to think that anyone will finish something that the original person wasn't motivated to finish himself. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:41, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- I am primarily addressing moving mainspace resources to the draft/user namespaces (not just deletion), i.e., should unfinished resources (of some age and state of incompletion) be draftified/userfied? What age and what state of completion? I am interested if there are any parameters this little subsphere has rough consensus around. Those parameters might be mentioned at WV:DEL on the use of {{Pagemove announcement}}/{{draftify}}/({{userfy}}?).
- (As unnecessary clarification, by 'unfinished', I'm not referring to nebulously 'improvable' (as any project surely is), rather specifically not finished explicit goals of the resource. Also, maybe this discussion is better located at WV:C or WV:AN?) Tule-hog (discuss • contribs) 20:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, your assessment about "unfinished" is correct: most anything could be improved, updated, expanded, etc. but there is a difference between that and something that is just 40% of the way done. I don't really see the value in moving things to the draft namespace (and don't really think that initiating things in it is particularly useful either), since it would just sit there and then get deleted anyway. Userfying is probably better. I personally don't know that I have a perspective on what to do with all of these semi-usable resources: I would probably just have an ad hoc answer for each abandoned resource. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
(I am taking this to RfD since I am unsure about the matter.)
This, I am afraid, is rank nonsense. Take, for instance:
- "{} ⇒ {}"
- "nothing implies nothing"
1) The empty set is not the same thing as nothing, making the 2nd line incorrect or disconnected from the first line; 2) the empty set is not a statement or proposition, and therefore cannot be meaningfully connected using the implication operator, ⇒.
Other examples are no better.
One can argue that the Wikiphilosophers should allow all sorts of material that some will consider to be nonsense. I guess it may be true (is it?), but this example goes too far, in my view, in its nonsensical character.
Proposed action: move to user space, to User:MarsSterlingTurner.
I found Wikidata:Q103906772 "Mars Sterling Turner" AKA "Humble Beauty, Subtle Calming Flow" and Wikidata:Q103903730 "Proof of monism", created by HumbleBeauty (talk • email • contribs • stats • logs • global account), who is blocked indefinitely in Wikiversity for "Block violation of User:Subtlevirtue". There is Subtlevirtue (talk • email • contribs • stats • logs • global account), blocked for "Advertising on Wikiversity is not appropriate".
Similar text: B:User:HumbleBeauty/Proof of monism.
Relating deleted pages: Draft:Proof of monism, User:HumbleBeauty/Proof of monism. Relating discussion: Wikiversity:Request_custodian_action/Archive/22#Blocked user
Perhaps experienced admins ("custodians" in WV terminology) can indicate the best course of action. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:17, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for sharing you concern for correct logical expression. If I am not mistaken a word is a zero-parity predicate. and in any case every word implies the same word! It's a logical necessity that the empty set implies the empty set. both the empty set and the word nothing have the same properties (they have no referent or content), so by virtue of the identity of indescernibles the empty set is equivalent to the word nothing. Even if I were wrong, I clearly mean the word nothing when I use {} in the math. so the logic follows by definition of the 'variable'. Have a good day. MarsSterlingTurner (discuss • contribs) 20:54, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- I moved the page to user space, User:MarsSterlingTurner/Ontology. Hardly any admins and semi-admins (custodians and curators) are active, so I guess it will be hard to collect more input. I now think the case is actually pretty clear. Admins and semi-admins can undo my move if required, which I hope it will be not. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 19:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
I propose to move to userspace. Since, this is not about "Evan Ratliff" and is perhaps about "Wikipedia and deletion of article Evan Ratliff" or even more general "Deletion process in Wikipedia"; not clear what one is supposed to learn here. Policy/guideline: WV:Deletion. Previous RFD discussion: Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion/Archives/6#Evan Ratliff KEPT. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Let me add: the deletion discussion is here: W:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evan Ratliff. I do not see anything interesting. I can imagine someone systematically evaluating deletion discussions in Wikipedia as a group or class, noting their characteristics, but I do not see why this particular case study, if that is what it is, reveals anything worth noting. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
I propose to delete this since the exhortation "ignore all rules" is nonsense. People who ignore all rules, even if they do so in good faith that they are improving the project, usually get into trouble. It is fundamentally dishonest/Orwellian to first encourage people to ignore all rules and then punish them for doing so. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:30, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
- It's a rejected proposal. Why do we need to delete it? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:12, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
- Since although it was rejected as a policy at Wikiversity talk:Ignore all rules in 2006, I saw some discussion somewhere (in some Wikipedia?) that it should not be a policy but nonetheless be somehow important. On the linked talk page, one comment says: "One of the most important pages, but wasn't designed to be policy (it's neither policy nor guideline on Wikipedia, but it's listed as an important page)." A page that is deleted is a page that one cannot use/refer to as a quasi-policy, as happens e.g. to Wikipedia: WP:BLUDGEON. I support keeping the talk page, especially as track record of the past vote. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 18:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)