Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion

From Wikiversity
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.

Deletion requests[edit]

WikiJournal Preprints/COVID-19 ELIMINATION AND CELL DIFFERENTIATION[edit]

An author (@PARTHASARATHI.N:) has submitted this manuscript to WikiJournal of Medicine. The author has requested to have it deleted on the talk page and has tried blanking and deleting the page (restored by @Dave Braunschweig:). The text is basically a mindstream without scientific merit. It has been rejected for publication in WikiJournals as per consensus of our Editorial Board per reasons outlined in Talk:WikiJournal Preprints/COVID-19 ELIMINATION AND CELL DIFFERENTIATION. See also discussion over at Talk:WikiJournal_of_Science#Declined_articles:_what_happens_to_reviews_if_the_draft_is_deleted? (with @Evolution and evolvability:). I think it has no place on Wikiversity either since it adds nothing. Author also has the right to have his work retracted so he can try publishing it elsewhere maybe. Therefore I Symbol support vote.svg Support deletion. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

To me, the author request at this point isn't relevant. As soon as an author submits text on any Wikimedia wiki, they "irrevocably agree to release [their] contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License". Any content published with a CC-BY-SA license gives everyone else the right to Retain, Reuse, Revise, Remix, and Redistribute that content[1]. Even if the author wants to blank or delete the resource, any one of us can choose to retain it for future use. In this case, the author did blank it. Based on input from User:Evolution and evolvability, I exercised my right to retain and reuse the resource, with credit to the original author in the history, and published with the same license.
So, now the question is, what educational value does this resource have? Does it provide value in terms of content? Does it provide value as an opportunity for improvement? Does it provide value as an example of the types of articles that are accepted and not accepted for publication in the WikiJournal? Until the editors of the WikiJournal come to consensus on what they would like to do with unpublished works, there is no point in any of us discussing it here. If they decide they don't want to retain rejected articles, then it can be moved to Draft: space for improvement and/or further discussion, or abandoned for ultimate deletion due to lack of interest. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 01:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
For medical articles the quality assurance is very important. Maybe a well-defined workflow for rejected articles could be established e.g. "after rejection of the submitted manusscript to the WikiJournal of Medicine the submission is moved to Draft:space with the annotations and recommendations of the reviewers. Improvements of wiki community or the original authors could lead to resubmission to the journal if the feedback of the reviewing process was incorporated in the new version of the manusscript/article". Just a recommendation. --Bert Niehaus (discusscontribs) 09:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  1. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/pathways/chapter/reading-the-5rs-of-oer/