Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion

From Wikiversity
(Redirected from Wikiversity:RFD)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Deletion guideline | Deletion log | Archives


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]

  1. Add {{Deletion request}} or {{dr}} to the image, category or resource nominated for deletion.
  2. Add a new section to the end of this page using the following format:
    == [[Page title]] ==
    reasons why this page ought to be deleted --~~~~

Undeletion requests[edit]

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.

User:ShakespeareFan00/Wikiversity All Subject Original Research Desk[edit]

Request restoration in connection with a proposal at English Wikipedia concerncing closure (and or Transwiki) of the English Wikipedia reference desk. I'd like this restored so I can develop it again. ShakespeareFan00 (discusscontribs) 22:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

YesY Done --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 23:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Deletion requests[edit]

Boubaker Polynomials/Wikipedia and Subpages[edit]

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

Serial communication[edit]

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

4G feature phone[edit]

Somewhat unsuitable to wikiversity in retrospectC933103 (discusscontribs) 20:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

YesY Done Closed. Author request. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 16:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Placing proposed delete templates on a number of pages[edit]

Many out of scope pages[edit]

are outside project scope.

The author has insults directed at Wikiversity on their userpage (since they started editing here...) so I won't ping them here. Zafloom (discusscontribs) 08:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I placed the {{prod}} on all of them. None looked harmful and I suggest moving them to Draft space. Also: I have no objection to deleting them either. --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 14:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete - See my extensive comment from the "Fake news in Canada" discussion. ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 23:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Fake news in Canada[edit]

Fake news in Canada has been questioned by two editors, and supported by a third editor who is not the author. It is time to discuss what to do with it.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 18:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


  • Preliminary statement by Guy vandegrift: I am not sure that it belongs in mainspace, unless it is a subpage to a page such as Fake news. If nobody wants to initiate a brief resource called "Fake news", or if the community does not support such a page, then the current Fake news in Canada belongs either in Draft space or as a subpage of the user's space. Either way, it is possible reduce the size of the font "Draft/:" or "User:username/" so as to not spoil the appearance of the page. Personally, I support such efforts to make such pages appear more attractive, but the community needs to agree on these suggestions first...And the community needs to decide whether Fake news in Canada should reside where it is (i.e., in mainspace.)--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 18:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

For discussion's sake here's a copy from the Colloquium: "On the front page, this notice pops up: 23 September: Fake news in Canada is ready!

As I have an interest in Fake News, I visited the page. I just have one question -- what is this?

It appears to be a log of tracking of Fake News site campaigns. There is a brief explanation at the top about "products advertised", but overall it has little if any educational value.

Now, I fully understand that it can take time to flesh out resources, and being a wiki a user can come, create a page and immediately abandon it. My concern is that something of potential interest and seemingly marked as "ready" (by templates?) and placed on the front page is actually of little value, and shouldn't be promoted.

(The upside is that I was so bothered by this I dug out my account details to log in and voice my concern. And I may be bold and rework the resource, if I can figure out what the original author was trying to do.) Am I just not understanding the motivation or missing some context? Historybuff (discusscontribs) 07:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Somebody requested that it be deleted, so I added the {{PROD}} (proposed deletion) template, and assumed there would be discussion on whether it should remain, be deleted, or be moved into DRAFT space. There was a movement afoot to move pages into DRAFT if they could not be demonstrated to have specific pedagogical value. A consensus was reached on using DRAFT space this way. I know of suggestions that we reconsider, but to my knowledge, no discussions have begun.Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 00:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
@Historybuff: If you are interested in developing that resource, consider creating an understandable page at Fake News and moving Fake news in Canada to a subpage of it. Whatever FNIC is, it might be nice to create and monitor a main page article on Fake news and allow articles in progress to be subpages of it. Or... we could follow some guidelines and place the works-in-progress in Draft space. Either way is OK with me. But I suspect there will be a consensus to get Fake news in Canada off the top of a mainspace article.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 00:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Guy ... I've actually done a small project in Fake news, and thought this might be a different take. I've looked at it a few times, and it's different ... but whatever it is, it isn't comprehensible in the form it is, at least to me. I was a bit tired and thought I might be missing something, which is why I left a note here. I looked again, and my best guess is that it was someone's research bits, but without the context of what else is going on, it's of little value to other people. (I like your idea, and if I have some time in the new week, I'll work a bit on it)
The main thing that bothered me enough to mention it was it showing up on the Main page, purporting to be ready, when at best it's still very rough. Whether by design or by accident, this page shouldn't be showing up as ready based on the state it is in. Historybuff (discusscontribs) 05:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)"

I'm not an expert on fake news but found Fake_news_in_Canada interesting, educational and informative! Further, the author extensively chronicled ongoing follow-up. It is the only resource on Wikiversity exclusively devoted to fake news. A search using "Fake news" finds it first with this File:How To Spot Fake News.jpg in the first 20 of 558. Most of which are images from commons. Ironically, many examples cited as fake news in Fake_news_in_Canada I have seen on TV and the web. As such I considered it a timely and brisk stab at fake news and left this on user:Lojbanist's talk page: "Your news resource Fake news in Canada appears to be ready for learners! Would you like to have it announced in our Main Page News? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 21:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)". User:Lojbanist responded with "It will be finished on December 25th UTC. KATMAKROFAN (discuss • contribs) 22:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)". User:Lojbanist's last context edit was "23:59, 2 December 2017 Lojbanist (discuss | contribs | block) . . (43,740 bytes) (+46) . . (→ Statistics)". On 16 September 2018 Guy vandegrift added a {{prod}} and 23 September 2018 Lojbanist removed it, triggering my watch list. I checked the user's talk page, considered the 23 September 2018 to be the final edit and announced it on Main Page News. It was there for about 8 days and had 289 hits for the past 30 days most on or after 23 September. Based on this it's clear the news resource struck a chord of reader interest. As the creator and principal contributor has used the label "SEMI-RETIRED", I doubt any response will occur. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 19:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

It is research, and assuming "good" faith, we must presume it to be valid research. I would strongly support a brief main page Fake news that contains an invitation for people to add subpages, and include a link to Fake news/Canada. I would even be willing to write the Fake news page. And, I would support a redirect at Fake news in Canada--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 12:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's not a landing page. It should be moved to draft space, user space, or as a subpage of an appropriate learning project. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 19:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Circle-question-red.svg Do we have a consensus to move Fake news in Canada to Fake news/Canada and include a link down to it? Dave Braunschweig and user:Historybuff seem likely to approve, and Marshallsumter raised no objection. I would be happy to write a short main page that features both the link, as well as an invitation for others to participate.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 18:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Dave that Fake news in Canada is not a landing page. Research here is usually only conducted by one or maybe two interested contributors so a landing page may need to be more general, or may be too soon. Just from reading user:Historybuff's history, the user stops by for short spurts of 1 - 3 days a year, then is gone again. So any subsequent handling looks like is in Guy's hands. As a subsequent contributor, go for it! --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 21:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

It was hard for me to read the comment after mine -- it looked like someone had found some value in this resource, but I'm not sure how. I did check and I think it's off of the Main page, which is what my concern initially was. @Guy vandegrift: If it's research, and it may very well be, it looks like notes rather than anything useful to another party. I wasn't suggesting it be deleted, but rather trying to figure out what it was. And I hope to be back for more than a day or three this year. :) Fake News isn't my first priority on being back, but I'll do something with it in the next few weeks. Historybuff (discusscontribs) 02:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

To be open and complete, I've added a comment for clarification to the Talk page. Let's give that a few days to see if there is any response. Historybuff (discusscontribs) 17:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to mention that the account of the creator of this page, Lojbanist, has been locked ("vanishing" from the Wikimedia foundation projects). I'm not particularly sure if this were to greatly affect the discussion or not, but I do believe it is worth mentioning this. I also believe that it is worth nothing that Lojbanist has arrogantly refused to address these concerns raised here in this discussion, removing the {{prod}} template from Fake news in Canada + including: Wikidirectory and Collaborative Animation Project with childish remarks [in the edit summaries]. With the fact that these pages seem to be of no educational value, the immaturity of the author (and his/her account being locked because he/she is "vanishing"), I say delete these pages and his other pages linked in my comment. Cheers. ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 23:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

MCAT Study Academy[edit]

Page seems to be of no educational value. The only worthwhile page here is the introduction. Other than that, there seems to be nothing in its subpages that seems to be of educational value. I'll admit, there are a few physics pages in there that are charming to the eyes of anyone eager to study for the MCAT (me), but the other subpages full of "No material available yet!" set my happy eyes to a rather disappointed pair.

I personally would be fine with taking on the challenge of creating a new MCAT study prep project on WV, but not without community consensus. -Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 23:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


I have already dIt seems to me that all these pages need proposed delete templates so that nobody wastes their time reading them. So the question is whether to delete any or all of the following pages. If I am not mistaken, the options are delete, keep or move to draft space

Keep in mind that a consensus to delete can be reversed at any time (even after the pages have been deleted.)--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 06:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Guy vandegrift: Wait, why can't we just do the voting on its own, separate discussion page? ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 10:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
@Atcovi:Did I put the question on the wrong page? Sorry. Perhaps we should consider this a straw vote and later move the discussion to the proper pages. What you think?--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 21:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Here, I went ahead and showed you what I, personally, think the format of this discussion should be. If you disagree, you may show your disagreement by reverting my changes. ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 21:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
@Atcovi:I like your edit because it focuses the discussion on Fake News MCAT Academy, which is probably the easiest call to make. Later we do the other questions one at a time.-Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 06:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)