User:Marshallsumter/Deletion concerns

These are comments concerning the current Deletion policy proposal that is being discussed at Wikiversity talk:Deletion policy.

Criteria
As I understand Criteria numbers 2, 4, 6-8, 10-13, no problem.

1. No educational objectives or discussion in history. Let's say the work is educational and no one else has discussed it as yet. Does this mean speedy deletion? How short is "shortly"?

3. Wikimedia's Terms of Use is directed toward contributor's copyright. US copyright law section 107 specifically allows limited use of quoted sentences or "in your own word" cited sentences or anywhere in between with citation from copyrighted works of anyone as both free and fair use. Automatically deleting a contribution that any custodian interprets as "Copyright works which do not satisfy Wikimedia's Terms of Use" that have nothing to do with its Terms of Use here is wrong. Better phrasing is "Contributor's copyrighted works which do not satisfy ...", but if contributor owns the copyright and freely contributes portions of the work here agrees to terms of use. Whole copyrighted works by one contributed by another is a copyright violation. Quoted or cited portions in compliance with section 107 are in compliance with Terms of Use. In short, "Copyright works which do not satisfy Wikimedia's Terms of Use" makes no sense.

5. "Blanked pages by author or by user for pages in their user space may be taken as a speedy deletion request." Wrong! These pages may be blanked for review, whether the page says so or not. A speedy deletion request may remove a potentially valuable learning resource before review is completed.

9. "Reposted works that ignore this deletion policy, unless significantly rewritten in a manner that does not warrant deletion." This phrasing is highly subjective and potentially harmful to resources at Wikiversity. An educational resource put up for deletion or deleted out of ignorance by a consensus should be reposted. The phrase "in a manner that does not warrant deletion" suggests a litmus test on learning resources.

Discussion "[C]ontributions from multiple participants" - it has been my experience that many of the resources I have contributed to or created are often regarded as beyond the expertise of many who may wish to sincerely contribute, on the one hand, and others who are totally negative to the contribution on the other. Such polarity would result in deletion, because reason may not prevail. Example, "Proton-antiproton annihilation" contribution to Wikipedia met with polarized ignorance.