Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion

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

Deletion guideline | Deletion log | Archives

Shortcuts:
WV:RFD
WV:DR

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.

Deletion requests[edit]

Pywikibot[edit]

This small course was just redundant of the MW:Manual:Pywikibot documentation, until two months ago, when it became completely obsolete and didn't work anymore with MediaWiki, even with the old bot version. Today, I've carefully checked all of its pages and I didn't find anything to improve the MediaWiki documentation. And by virtue of the agile software development, I don't think it would be relevant to maintain such a double documentation regularly. So this content must be removed. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 22:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Moreover its main author is inactive for six years. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 07:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Would the course or any portions of it be of any historical value, e.g. to python users? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 02:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Parapsychology/Sources/Steigmann[edit]

Proposing deletion of Parapsychology/Sources/Steigmann and all related materials based on using Wikiversity for cross-wiki abuse and profiteering from Wikiversity, based on concerns raised at Wikiversity:Request_custodian_action#User:Ben_Steigmann.

@Ian.thomson: Please provide any relevant or additional evidence related to this discussion, if you wish. Please focus discussion on content ((links to edits in evidence) rather than the contributor.

@Ben Steigmann: Please provide any relevant explanation for the apparent cross-wiki abuse and attempt to profiteer from Wikiversity content.

Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 03:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

To recap for those who don't feel like checking Wikiversity:Request_custodian_action#User:Ben_Steigmann, Steigmann has and continues to engage in illegitimate sockpuppetry for block evasion on Wikipedia, and says he will continue to do so because he believes that the continued presence of this course entitles him to link to his Wikiversity course on Wikipedia. Guy vandegrift has removed promotional material (a GoFundMe link) from Steigmann's course.
In short, Steigmann violates Wikipedia's policies to promote a course on this site that he stands to make money from. My inner Vogon wonders if that makes the course a violation of Deletion Criteria 14, "Serious Ethical Breach," though I must admit that that would require interpreting "harm" in a particular sense. My inner Vogon also wants to suggest that, devoid of promotional material, it is little more than a copy of the perfectly fine Radin source list with the addition of copyright violations. Steigmann's page "quotes" the entirely of the review of Peter Lamont's Extraordinary Beliefs: A Historical Approach to a Psychological Problem. Elsewhere, it plagiarizes from (the admittedly public domain) Andrew Lang's The Origins of Religion. That was a casual glance at the first 5% of the page -- and that much is enough to have me inclined to agree with my inner Vogon that copyrighted material might be a problem. Ian.thomson (discusscontribs) 04:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete I have reported Ben in the past on another website he has vandalised Rationalwiki and another, I am a member over there. Ben Steigmann is a man who suffers from self-confessed mental illness. He has personality disorders, symptoms of schizophrenia and asperger syndrome. He admits some of these things on his public Facebook that he linked to on this website. You said above do not talk about ben but I believe these factors should be taken into account. He is not fit to being editing a wiki, this is why he gets banned pretty much every wiki he edits. I have tried to be compassionate to him because he has problems but he shows no sign of stopping. He will go to great length to defend his unorthodox fringe views or pseudoscientific views, most of which consists of spam. For example this https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Parapsychology/Dispute_over_Scientific_Status/Steigman should be deleted because it heavily quoting almost entire peoples work. I find it unlikely Ben Steigmann will comment here. If he does he will most likely claim he has been "impersonated" by skeptics or a colleague of his was borrowing his computer. He has claimed these things on other websites to try and get out of his bans. If you check his talk-page on this website there are many accounts that he has created to try and 'boost' himself support. They are sock-puppets that he creates and talks to himself on. Examples PsychicResearcher , spiritualist researcher , Researcher guy + another 4 I counted. After seeing Ben's vandalism on wiki on the Frederic Myers article I see no reason why he should be a member here. He is using this website to promote his fringe views on Myers and other pseudoscience promoters. All of his material on this website should be deleted. No doubt he has already archived it and we will see it spammed on other wiki's in time. Sci-fi- (discusscontribs) 17:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)