Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion/Archives/9

Cleaning out my desk
Since there is already quite a bit of vandalism piling up (like this wonderful page) and sitting there for a while, and people coming to IRC looking for help and no one able to help, I am confirmed in my suspicion that Wikiversity is no longer a place to bother with. Thus, I am asking for the deletion of my work per the academic courtesy that has existed her for quite a long time. I would like all of these pages to be considered blanked and then deleted. They are incomplete, were used mostly in my classes or classes I guest lectured during, and have little value for anyone else, especially when we wont have another expert to finish anything (and they would probably want to go there own way). Ottava Rima (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * British Romantic poetry
 * Lectures/Literary criticism/Percy Bysshe Shelley/1820 collection
 * Lectures/Literary criticism/Percy Bysshe Shelley/Alastor collection
 * Lectures/Literary criticism/John Keats/Nightingale
 * Lectures/Literary criticism/John Keats/Keats's epic
 * Lectures/Literary criticism/Thomas Gray/Elegy's influence
 * John Keats's major works
 * John Keats's major works/To Autumn
 * British Romantic literary theory
 * Enydmion Society/How to write a Wiki book
 * Enydmion Society/Prometheus Unbound with Other Poems
 * Enydmion Society/Prometheus Unbound with Other Poems/Prometheus Unbound
 * Enydmion Society/Prometheus Unbound with Other Poems/The Sensitive Plant
 * Enydmion Society/Prometheus Unbound with Other Poems/A Vision of the Sea
 * Enydmion Society/Prometheus Unbound with Other Poems/Ode to Heaven
 * Enydmion Society/Prometheus Unbound with Other Poems/An Exhortation
 * Enydmion Society/Prometheus Unbound with Other Poems/Ode to the West Wind
 * Enydmion Society/Prometheus Unbound with Other Poems/The Cloud
 * Enydmion Society/Prometheus Unbound with Other Poems/To a Skylark
 * Enydmion Society/Prometheus Unbound with Other Poems/Ode to Liberty
 * Lectures/Literary history/History of printing‎
 * Lectures/Literary criticism/James Joyce/Narrator of Ulysses
 * Lectures/Literary criticism/James Joyce/Feminist interpretations of Molly Bloom‎
 * Lectures/Literary criticism/George Eliot/Middlemarch and the Nazarenes
 * English literary canon
 * File:Ottava transcript part 1.jpg
 * File:Ottava transcript part 2.jpg
 * File:Ottava transcript part 3.jpg
 * File:Ottava transcript part 4.jpg

There are probably others that I am missing, and I will add to the list if I feel like bothering. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that you feel this way. It is also very sad to hear sort of farewell words from you. But I believe it will be more like a break than a goodbye. To the point: Somebody already blanked the pages... I think this should be reverted. It is a pretty good material "in the making" as everything around here. No reason to delete. Also I would like to point out the text at the bottom of each edit page saying: "By saving, you agree to irrevocably release your contribution under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 and the GFDL." So: --Gbaor 18:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Licensing doesn't matter, otherwise we wouldn't delete anything. It is standard practice to clean out old stuff when a class no longer uses it and requests it removed. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Believe me, blanking was not a task I enjoyed. But there is something of that strikes me as a bit selfish about not honoring a user's request to remove pages they have written.  Yes we all acknowledge that in principle our work could be used for any purpose commercial or otherwise, even if we are unhappy about its use we may have little legal recourse to do something about it.
 * Now, the situation in hand is that he has asked us to take down his work. And I don't want to be part of a slimy self interested organization that try's to profit from work that the author doesn't wish them to have.  Sometimes it is not possible to disentangle one persons work from the work of other people, given the nature of a wiki, but in the cases above he seems to be the sole author.  And as for the files at the end, do we seriously intend to keep his transcript public against his will? Thenub314 18:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thenub, the blanking could be seen as vandalism.... did you notice that some of these pages have other authors? Ottava does not own *any* of the content, because he released whatever rights he had by uploading, and there may be links in many places pointing to the pages. Deletion causes damage to the project. Routinely, useless pages are deleted through a speedy tag by the author, it does not require an RfD. As to the transcript, those pages may actually be needed for evidence, long story. Ottava created them as part of what seems to have been a disruptive argument on Commons. He scrubbed them of personal identifying information. I don't need those pages, I have copies.... --Abd 19:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava still has the buttons, so he's quite capable of doing these. This seems to be about making a point. --SB_Johnny talk 18:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you really think I wont have more shouts of "recusal" if I did? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of this as standard practice, and part of Wikiversity's operating procedure is to build resources for future use. Wikiversity is not just a collection of current classes to be deleted when the class is over. Like some IRC log of only slightly longer persistence....
 * Users may request deletion of pages where they are the only contributor. Seems to me that there are other user names in the history of one or more of those pages. Where all users agree on a deletion, it is customary to allow it, but if a page is linked from other pages, that, too, should be considered. Others, however, may wish to use the material that was put up. I do not recommend rapid deletion of these pages. Seems to me this request is hasty, and some time should be allowed. The files at the end of the request can and should be deleted, unless linked locally. Ottava did put up these files, apparently, as part of a strange argument he was having on Commons, where he was attempting to prove that he had academic credentials. They really didn't belong here in the first place. So those may be deleted. Ottava should simply place a speedy deletion template on them, as with any other personal files he wants to "clean out." And then a reviewing custodian should check linking and authorship. As well, in a situation like this, recent edits should be examined, where possible, to see if links were removed contrary to Wikiversity benefit, i.e., if a remaining resource is damaged by the removal of the link and cannot, then, be fixed without the page linked to still being undeleted. Better: do nothing for now about these files.
 * SB_Johnny, Ottava should not delete these pages himself. He's correct to avoid recusal failure. If this was just an odd file, no longer of use to Wikiversity, it would be different. Recusal failure does not arise with de minimus. But this is a much deeper cut. --Abd 18:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There two potential points I see by asking for ones work to be deleted in this way. The first would be to show everyone else what they lost out on.  In a sense he has accomplished this already by posting the list, and there is no reason not to fulfill his request.  On the other hand his point might be about the lack of custodial support for doing jobs that are more or less grunt work.  In this case leave the list there longer only makes his point.
 * Regardless of his reasons, some do feel he should recuse himself and he has, so it is left to some other custodian to do the job. In reference to Abd's post above, I was fairly careful in checking the page histories of the pages I blanked. And only blanked in cases that he was only main other modulo things that should have been marked as minor edits (spelling corrections, etc.).  Thenub314 19:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * People who made spelling corrections made an investment in Wikiversity. You also erred, Thenub, there was more than that. But it's beside the point. Ottava has no right to demand deletion, but he can request it. I'm suggesting that this is way premature. It will take time for the community to review these files and decide whether or not to keep them. This is not an ordinary deletion request, and it appears to be spiteful. Ottava should have some time to reflect, and we should insist he take that time and not jump to satisfy the whim.'Nuff said. Yeah, and I'll add one-o-them templates below. --Abd 19:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Oppose based on arguments above. This is also opposition to speedy deletion, in this case, though, originally, that would have been the path for Ottava to take (with tags). --Abd 19:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Pictogram_voting_comment.svg|15px]] Comment I don't think blanking or deleting actions for these pages should be done until such time as it becomes clear that this is what the consensus is for the request. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Blank but not delete certainly, upon author's request, and anything left is preserved in contribution history, and so anyone can revert to a previous revision at a later date of they so choose to improve such pages. Deleting eliminates any chance of that happening, and would be incorrect for Creative Commons licensing, unless the author created the page as a mistake or the page was very recent, but these have old histories. TeleComNasSprVen 00:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Licensing has nothing to do with deletion discussions. After all, everything here is licensed properly and copyvio is speedied. One of the deletion reasons is "author requested". I don't really see why these are treated any differently nor is there any legitimate justification to treat them any differently. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, what about this? Ottava wants these pages deleted on "author request"? But any of us, then, could recreate the pages, using the same content, with reference to the original page. Quick way to get some more content, seems like decent content to me. On the other hand, isn't this just a bunch of unnecessary work? And the technical difficulties have been overlooked by Ottava, such as lack of exclusive authorship, in some cases. Or even lack of authorship. Some of these pages were not created by Ottava Rima. Or were they? To delete under author request, we surely need to know that we are dealing with the author. --Abd 17:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Adambro deleted the transcript pages, which is an acceptable action, they were truly personal and not needed for Wikiversity. --Abd 17:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose one of the things that bothers me about this is that it flies in the face of cross wiki culture. I haven't editited enough to read the deletion policy at every WMF wiki, but the ones I have (wikipedia, wikisource, wikiquote, wikiversity, and perhaps of some  historical significance wikibooks) all contain as a statement about requests by an author being a speedy deletion criteria.  This has happened numerous times at wikibooks that I am familiar with, and I imagine it is somewhat rarer at other places but who knows.  I suppose I am fairly familiar with the phenomenon.  And yes, I have watch what I was excellent material disappear.  It is a shame.  In fact it down right stinks.  To me it comes down to the following question, should we has an organization choose to say:
 * "Yes, I fully acknowledge this excellent piece of work is your creative effort, and I respect your choice not to share it, even if I don't agree with that choice." Or would we rather be an organization that says
 * "Yes, I fully acknowledge this excellent piece of work is your creative effort, and I intend to keep publishing it despite your objections because it serves our purposes. This organization chooses simply to don't recognize that your creative effort affords you any say our publication of the work."
 * Licensing is not really relevant from my perspective, neither particularly is the quality of the work. In my point of view it is a matter of showing some small respect to our contributors' authorship when we can.  For the pages above that Ottava is clearly the author of we should delete them out respect of the fact that we recognize the pages are entirely his own work, our own feelings about how nice the pages are really should be a part of the discussion.   Yes we could simply recreated them, legally it would be fine to copy and paste, never delete, etc. but I hope we are a bit better then that. Thenub314 21:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"Author request" is a speedy deletion reason here as well as elsewhere, but this is not a policy, i.e., it is not policy anywhere, to my knowledge, that any user may require deletion of a page upon request, as the author. Sole authorship requests are routinely granted, but this was an unusual one, massive, and complicated because other users were involved, and I have not researched the full extent of it. Normally, author requests that are routinely granted refer to material that has become useless (or sometimes harmful). I've never seen one in mainspace on Wikipedia, other than for errors (i.e., author intended to create a page in user space but accidentally put it in mainspace, I've done that), but probably they do occur where an author realizes that sources don't properly support the article, or the like. As to respect for the author, it is not necessarily respect to honor a request from someone who is rather obviously disturbed and upset, and who might be acting hastily. I've seen people faced with what Ottava was faced with who trashed everything they could reach, and who probably regretted it later. I see no reason to rush here.

The options listed for what we are "saying," with various policies are not the full extent of possibilities. However, it's very clear: when posting material to Wikiversity or any WMF wiki, the license has been released, and the person retains no control over it. The material will also exist on mirrors, and the policy is very clear. Anyone may take the material and modify it or copy it respecting the license.

Wikiversity is very much unlike the other wikis, though, in that we have extraordinary freedom in mainspace. We can keep incomplete or fragmentary material for years. There is no particular notability requirement, and original research is allowed. Pages can "promote fringe ideas," and only "ownership" of top-level resources, hogging a topic, excluding others, would cross our boundaries. Often those from other wikis are not accustomed to this, and are offended by what they sometimes find here. But to judge Wikiversity, one should look at the best, not the worst.

I don't know how significant a body this material is compared to the full corpus of Ottava's work here. I'd be much more inclined to support this deletion if there has been a substantial passage of time, however.

I don't see any reason at all for it to be urgent, and if speedy deletion is appropriate, well, why did this request come here? Surely Ottava knows how to put up a speedy tag and avoid all this discussion! But now that this is here, and now that there has been comment, that path is, for the time being, foreclosed. Blanking is an ordinary editorial decision, requiring no discussion unless opposed. I'm not reviewing it immediately, but may, in time. --Abd 21:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * the spirit of wiki is to create resources for others to improve upon and expand. While "author requests" are generally fulfilled when it comes to userpages, ideas that seemed good at first but not later, etc., they shouldn't be heeded when it's a clear case of "taking my marbles and going home". Ottava has made several statements implying that Wikiversity will be harmed by his departure, and this request was clearly made in some sort of effort to "increase the harm". --SB_Johnny talk 23:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Spite and general bullying isn't a legitimate oppose reason. As I stated, the work is incomplete and wont be complete. This is not an encyclopedia where people take over in others work as there is no set idea. The harm that will come from my departure will be from lack of an active Custodian willing to do the work necessary to clean out the vandalism, which you nor anyone else does. Even Abd is now trying to claim we need him as a Custodian to do the work, showing his support of a desysop of me is purely a conflict of interest. Now, if you do leave my work it will show that you chased out the only one who had any academic background in a major subject. An academic, what -you- aren't, what Abd isn't, what Adambro isn't, etc. There are only a few of us. Once Jtneill is swamped with the vandalism and problems, and no one volunteers because of a poisonous atmosphere you and Abd promoted, then his university will shut down his little experiment. We functioned when you weren't around, SB Johnny, not while you were around. That isn't a coincidence. All of your edits are edits done for spite. You stopped pretending to work on legitimate subjects in early 2008. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, the above farrago of complaints, which certainly resembles attacks on users, are "legitimate support reasons" for the deletions? The "nobody to maintain" argument is silly, because Ottava isn't being banned, unless he keeps up the personal attacks, he could defend his own pages if he wants, but I've also offered to watch them. If it's true that Ottava did the only good work in a subject -- I have no reason to doubt that -- what's the problem, then? Consider the corollary of what he's saying: that we should delete the material because it might make him look good? Huh? It's obvious. --Abd 23:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Ottava is still in a major snit about being confronted over his gross incivility and, yes, bullying, which is the reason we should just shut this down and let him calm down. Weird. I volunteer to help with vandalism and Ottava thinks this is "conflict of interest," as if I was earlier preparing to confront him on his incivility so that I could take over the boring grunt work, as if I'd want that job. No, I'm offering to help, and I've been writing recusal policy that would prevent me and others from doing damage because of our personal opinions. It might be enough that I'm available as a custodian under mentorship for an extended time. Ottava is, I'm afraid, completely out to lunch on all this, unable to understand what happened to him. It's unfortunate. If he'd just understand the obvious, he wouldn't even have to lose his admin bit. There is no spite and bullying here, just a refusal to hop when he says, "Jump!" I supported all of his other recent actions and requests. --Abd 23:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Removing the only active admin directly destroys the project. Your failure to understand that shows that you are oblivious to anything around you. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This has to do with deleting these files? --Abd 03:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep. You want to make the project worse then stand in the way of common action without any clear reason except for what can be seen as spite. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep whatever has at least a decent start and can be improved on by anyone that knows the subject, and Delete the rest. -- dark lama  12:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. That's great, Darklama, I agree. However, how do we tell the difference between what is decent and can be improved on, and what isn't? I have this suggestion: This RfD should be closed as Keep, which always means Keep For Now, not Keep Forever. Ottava or J.Peters, then place, on the pages, a speedy deletion tag, author request, for any which the users still wants deleted, and some additional argument can be included. If the tag stays there for a reasonable time, I'd give it a month, giving opportunity for anyone who wants the pages kept to remove the tag, and nobody removes the tag, it's presumably deleted unless a custodian removes the tag. If the tag is removed, and if someone still wants the page deleted, they bring that page back here, with arguments for deletion, specific to the page. This discussion should be referenced in that new RfD. If the arguments are similar, more than one can be brought here at once, of course. But we might have a reduced set! Or even none. --Abd 20:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Granted people may have different ideas of what is a decent start. I think we could learn a bit from some of the minimalistic requirements of WP or WB in terms of what is a decent start. If a page has at least one paragraph that describes or defines the subject matter and people cannot locate another page on the project which could serve students in its place than maybe it could be considered a decent start. Placing speedy deletion notices for a month is one way to go, but speedy notices can discourage adopting a work because it suggests that pages could be pulled out from under anyone at any moment and that their time could be put to better use contributing to other pages. -- dark lama  20:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Then we should revise the speedy deletion template to note that any editor may remove such a template, especially if they want to work on it. We should work on the policy, and the template can refer to the policy for details. --Abd 02:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The template already encourages people to do so when they wish to work on pages. What I'm concerned about is the human tendency to associate things with specific meanings and social expectations without bothering to check if their assumptions are correct first. I think for most people the presents of a deletion template of any form is assumed to mean that a decision to delete has already been made and its just a matter of time before it is finally deleted. Encouragement often helps, but not when there are discouraging signs too. -- dark lama  17:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Articles with Multiple Authors
We need to differentiate out the articles here that have multiple authors, then the rest can be deleted per author request. Geoff Plourde 21:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Pages with Ottava as the sole contributor
Excluding myself who blanked some (all?) of these pages.
 * British Romantic poetry
 * Lectures/Literary criticism/John Keats/Nightingale
 * Lectures/Literary criticism/John Keats/Keats's epic
 * Lectures/Literary criticism/Thomas Gray/Elegy's influence
 * John Keats's major works
 * John Keats's major works/To Autumn
 * British Romantic literary theory
 * Enydmion Society/How to write a Wiki book
 * Enydmion Society/Prometheus Unbound with Other Poems/Prometheus Unbound
 * Enydmion Society/Prometheus Unbound with Other Poems/The Sensitive Plant
 * Enydmion Society/Prometheus Unbound with Other Poems/A Vision of the Sea
 * Enydmion Society/Prometheus Unbound with Other Poems/Ode to Heaven
 * Enydmion Society/Prometheus Unbound with Other Poems/An Exhortation
 * Enydmion Society/Prometheus Unbound with Other Poems/Ode to the West Wind
 * Enydmion Society/Prometheus Unbound with Other Poems/The Cloud
 * Enydmion Society/Prometheus Unbound with Other Poems/To a Skylark
 * Enydmion Society/Prometheus Unbound with Other Poems/Ode to Liberty
 * Lectures/Literary history/History of printing‎
 * Lectures/Literary criticism/James Joyce/Narrator of Ulysses
 * Lectures/Literary criticism/James Joyce/Feminist interpretations of Molly Bloom‎
 * Lectures/Literary criticism/George Eliot/Middlemarch and the Nazarenes
 * I have bolded certain page links above. What is the basis for asserting these as Ottava's exclusive work? --Abd 00:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Abd, I think you know enough about me to answer that question on your own. I wont be saying anymore about that part. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am personally aware that this account belongs to Ottava, due to some off wiki activity. I also believe you know that this is Ottava's account also, but raise an argumentative point to support your opposition to deleting these pages.  It seems silly to me to to ignore facts for bureaucracy, but your point is taken.  If you want to insist on proof you could request a the second account leave a message here supporting the deletion, or if you really want to... strengthen your already strong relationship with Ottava you could request a check user at meta. (Forgive the sarcasm I couldn't resist.) Thenub314 18:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My point is actually more complex than that. There are ways which could easily have been used to accomplish what is legitimate here, without this fuss, and I'd assume that Ottava would be well aware of them. They were not followed, which is a sign that this request is not as simple as it appears. I would not request checkuser at meta in order to identify a non-disruptive sock, and, Thenub, every bit of discussion of this could cause the opposite of what I'd imagine Ottava wants. Unless he really doesn't care, but has only previously asserted problems with "outing" for other reasons. You have, here, attracted even more attention to these pages, and if you look back, you will see how I approached this very gingerly, one small step at a time, hoping that hints would lead to a better approach. In other words, Thenub, bull in a china closet. I'm not acting to protect Ottava, that's true, except through that restraint, and the restraint and what was hinted at was ignored, by you, making unsupportable statements, trying to tempt[ing], perhaps, a custodian into deletion without checking *each page.* The list was ordered such that a simple confirmation on a few pages might miss the problem. By asserting that these pages were authored by Ottava, a problem on the face, you made it necessary to call attention, directly, to the actual problem, instead of taking the hint. I agree that you "couldn't resist." Consider the effect of that lack of self-restraint.


 * The problem with your naive suggestion that the second account leave a note there is that either this account discloses the relationship or there is sock abuse, that is, using a sock to imply independent support for an action. If Ottava did not wish to avoid that, as he has, so far (properly), he could have simply, as a custodian, deleted those pages directly. He'd have just put a speedy tag on them, author request, and then responded to that tag as a custodian. Creating an excuse for immediate desysop. --Abd 20:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC) redacted "trying to." I have insufficient evidence of intention to be able to assert that, which is why I used "perhaps," but this was still easily misunderstood. Thenub's comments above were incautious and could have caused damage, but I was not asserting deliberate deception, on his part, nor on Ottava's part, though there is something truly odd about both of them overlooking the obvious problem with an author asserting deletion of sole-authorship pages, given the discrepant record, and the mixture of the problem pages in the middle of the others, where Ottava was, in the face, the sole author or the major author as asserted. By filing this RfD instead of using normal sole-author process, with deletion templates, Ottava set up this dispute. --Abd 16:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Pages where Ottava was the only "Significant Contributor"

 * Lectures/Literary criticism/Percy Bysshe Shelley/1820 collection (Two IP minor edits. Possibly due to Ottava, possibly not.)
 * Enydmion Society/Prometheus Unbound with Other Poems/Prometheus Unbound (Uncategorized template by Leutha)
 * Okay, what is the basis for asserting that Ottava is the "only significant contributor" for the last page? --Abd 00:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Pages with non-trivial edits by other users

 * Lectures/Literary criticism/Percy Bysshe Shelley/Alastor collection
 * English literary canon

If the consensus is to delete, of course the deleting custodian should double check my work. Thenub314 22:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Now, it might be thought that I'm being facetious. In reality, I'm pointing to two things: we do not accept claims of authorship without evidence, and there is, here, strong evidence that this request for deletion was not carefully thought out, it was impulsive and incautious. I recommend to Ottava that he withdraw this request and ask that this be speedily closed and archived, or the like. --Abd 00:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * So if Ottava hasn't taken down this request in a week or so, after he has had time to think through his actions and they could no longer be considered impulsive would you consider removing your opposition? Thenub314 18:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No. A week is not enough. Ottava's sensible response to earlier discussion here would have been that he withdraw this request entirely, allowing it to be archived, and then approach the issue in simpler ways, probably after substantial delay, at least a month or more. What, indeed, is the emergency here? Why the use of RfD for what would ordinarily be handled with deletion tags, much less disruptively? --Abd 20:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

"Unbiased set of eyes"
A few comments, in response to Thenub314's request. --Draicone (talk) 10:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel Abd's assertion that "The list was ordered such that a simple confirmation on a few pages might miss the problem" is inappropriate and I hope Abd will return to assuming good faith, at least in Thenub's case. I have no reason to believe that Thenub intended to conceal the contribution history of those pages. As Thenub rightly points out, the deleting custodian should double check the list on deletion, especially as these pages are not just stubs lacking any educational content. We should not speculate on Thenub's intent without extremely compelling grounds.
 * While Ottava's attitude speaks volumes, we must set that aside, as the fact remains that we have generally deleted pages on a sole author's request. Most requests may be procedural (mistakes, stubs no longer needed, userspace experiments etc.), but we establish a general approach to these issues and should take care when departing from that general approach. The body of the discussion here appears to focus on Ottava's intention and motive, neither of which are relevant to this discussion and should instead be raised in CR.
 * At this stage, we can only accept Ottava's assertion that these articles are incomplete and have little value for anyone else, and given that deletions are not permanent, this seems to me to be sufficient to justify deletion of any page where Ottava is the sole contributor. If someone else wishes to work on these articles, an undeletion can be discussed at a later stage.
 * Having explored the history for a sample of the linked articles, it seems that only a handful had a significant contribution from another author, generally User:J.Peters (or is this an alternate account of Ottava?). For these articles, we should consult J.Peters before any deletion, and ideally before blanking as well, but should the user agree I see no reason not to proceed with deletion. The articles also seem relatively dormant, and unless a school or project (either on- or off-wiki) is using them (which does not seem to be the case), their deletion would not be a material loss. However, in order to determine whether they are in use, deletion notices should be added to the pages in question for a sensible period of time.
 * TCNSV mentions that deletions "would be incorrect for Creative Commons licensing"; while, under CC licensing, Ottava does not have the right to force a removal of his material, CC in no way prevents voluntarily deletion, and we take advantage of this on a regular basis for author requested deletions.
 * I've redacted my comment above to reduce possible misunderstanding. The list was indeed "ordered such," which is a passive statement and does not assert an intention to deceive. The ordering came from Ottava, not Thenub, so that comment wasn't about Thenub at all, but, at most, about Ottava. However, Thenub clearly took it personally. My comments here were made necessary by the continued avoidance of the obvious issue of authorship, and Thenub clearly did see the problem but glossed over it. You have now pointed it out explicitly, and that problem is therefore resolved by the note below from J.Peters, leaving only the question of whether or not we should delete apparently useful pages in mainspace, on an author request here. I agree about deletion notices, as a minimum. I don't agree that "dormant" is relevant. Many projects may become dormant for a time, my main personal work here is on Cold fusion, which was long dormant. If that dormant project had not been here, I might not have realized that a project could be started, I may not have realized how Wikiversity policies were far more flexible and not so vulnerable to POV-pushing as a problem, and to the too-common attempt on Wikipedia to enforce neutrality-by-exclusion. In other words, that "dormant project" led to my extensive participation here, serving as a custodian for a time and possibly again, to my service in helping other users understand how Wikiversity can be of major benefit, and in protecting them against (occasional) abuse, etc. And, by the way, thanks for your long service to Wikiversity, and I hope you will continue to help us. What you have shown is how a "dormant" custodian may return at any time when there is a need. --Abd 17:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am posting to confirm the request for deletion of this and the desire to have the incomplete project removed. This post should remove any technical matters regarding this issue. J.Peters (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, J.Peters. I almost used your first name.... Now that this is out of the way, we can consider the remaining issue. There was opposition to deletion before the J.Peters issue was raised. I'd want to see some time elapse before this is closed, some time to research, for example, if there are incoming links to these pages where a student might be missing something if they are deleted. We do damage Wikiversity when we delete possibly useful material, and these pages were in mainspace, they were not merely user space scratch. If deletion templates had been placed on these pages by a sole author, I doubt anyone would be hopping up and down, but we were asked to comment by the author! --Abd 16:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed - let's get the deletion notices up so that they have a reasonable amount of exposure before we take a decision. J.Peters: Thanks for the heads up. Abd: Thanks for reconsidering your comment above. --Draicone (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Having not followed through this whole discussion (tl;dr-ing) because of offwiki issues, and the only thing I've read so far was pretty much my own comment about this deletion above, I would say I am "unbiased" so to speak. And having said that, and taking a look at Abd's comment, I would advise him to redact the entire paragraph, because it is entirely incivil and attacks Thenub314 for simply pointing out the needless bureaucracy and drama Ottava's request for deletion has garnered. TeleComNasSprVen 19:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * RfD templates have been added. I checked through the links to these pages, the only links consist of: links from this page, links from pages in Ottava's users space, links from the talk pages of pages being considered for deletion, and in one sole instance there is a redirect that should be deleted along with the page it redirects to, but being several layers deep it is not a relevant search term. Overall nothing that would be harmed if the pages were removed. Thenub314 19:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Blanking

 * The blanking of these pages has been discussed above and carried out it seems. I would highlight that blanking loads of pages reduces the usefulness of Special:ShortPages in identifying pages which have been vandalised and pages where they have been blanked by the sole author which can often be considered a request that the page is deleted. It doesn't seem anywhere above that any actual reason for blanking pages in circumstances like this is mentioned. Unless there is some strong reason for doing so I would suggest that we avoid this practice going forward. If a page is no longer of any value then let's delete it. If there is a potential future value then let's leave it as it was. Blanking as some kind of halfway house create a number of issues. In addition to that which I've highlighted, by blanking a page it will eventually disappear from search engines and WV's own search feature which significantly reduces the likelihood that someone might decide to develop the page further which almost makes keeping it blank pointless. Adambro 20:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Being the person who blanked, I will keep that in mind. For better or worse I had blanked almost immediately after this section was posted before any object to blanking was raised.  I had at expected that the pages would be deleted almost immediately after (I simply did not have the tools to do so at the time).  I hadn't really foreseen the amount of resistance that would over this.  I will be more careful moving forward. Thenub314 23:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You can add a hidden HTML comment to artificially increase the page size. In wikipedia it's used in short disambiguation pages. Like this: . --Enric Naval 10:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to reverse blanking and delete within a month
I propose to temporarily undo the blanking done by Thenub314 until someone makes major edits to these resources. If someone were willing to improve the resources to Wikiversity standards, and a month is enough time to determine whether or not someone would be willing to do so, then these pages can be kept; but if otherwise no one would be willing to take the resources seriously enough to consider improving them, then they should be deleted after a month or so. TeleComNasSprVen 23:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. This would be similar to the month-long prod established by Abd in the above. TeleComNasSprVen 23:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is fine by me, I am a big fan of the reverting and do not consider a single revert to be edit warring. I would have no problem if someone wanted to reverse my work. Just be careful to put the  templates back in. ~`Thenub314
 * Frankly I support "unblanking" because I think blanking was a bad idea. If someone is interested in the topic, they won't find the pages via google search if they're blanked. --SB_Johnny talk 23:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thenub314 01:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Conclusions?
Can anyone see a consensus here? I thought the TCNSV proposal was in line with the discussion (as well as what seemed to be a general tapering off after 26/11), and deleted two articles (John Keats's major works and John Keats's major works/To Autumn) after their month of delete tags. I've restored per Ottava's dispute on my talk page.

Could everyone who weighed in back in November go over the discussion again (esp. TCNSV's proposal) and add their latest opinion? I'm happy to leave the prod tags on longer, but I think we should delete these at some stage, if only to continue our approach of offering to delete contributions on author request. --Draicone (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I see four clear keep votes. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's how I saw the 'votes' when I actioned those two pages:
 * Gbaor: Keep, but potentially basing this on a misunderstanding of licensing, and without having seen TCNSV's proposal (?)
 * SBJ: Keep, although commented on TCNSV's proposal without indicating a preference either way
 * Thenub: Delete using TCNSV's proposal
 * Jtneill: Wait for consensus
 * Abd's comments are very much in line with TCNSV's proposal, he seems to only oppose the speedy
 * Darklama: Case-by-case based on the page (I tried to take this into account when selecting the two pages above)
 * Geoff: Delete on author request
 * Ottava Delete (yes, you get a 'vote', but this isn't a poll)
 * Me: Delete using TCNSV's proposal (although my comments predate the proposal)
 * TCNSV: Delete using TCNSV's proposal
 * Anonymous Uploader: Keep. No comments further.
 * I think this is inconclusive at best, and after many of these 'votes', delete tags have been added and displayed for over a month, during which they have not (as far as I am aware) been disputed. --Draicone (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. You assumed people made claims about something they did not reply to (i.e. the "proposal" which most people probably never saw) and 2. you outed me, which isn't appropriate. There were four keeps. After that, consensus was clear. TCNSV's whatever isn't even close to being acceptable nor did people agree to it, so it is silly to even go off of that. The matter is over now. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Uh, Dracoine, the deletion was, indeed, disputed. Because you !voted in the deletion discussion, you aren't the best person to close and act (that would be standard recusal policy, eventually, I'd think). However, if there aren't any custodians who haven't already expressed an opinion one way or another, and willing to act, you can propose an action and see if anyone objects. It's not necessary to "establish consensus," necessarily, and asking people to comment again in this case is asking for more wasted time.


 * I find it odd that the one who objected to your deletions was Ottava, since if he wants the files kept, he simply withdraws the request and removes the tags. That's a special privilege the nominator gets! But, hey, some of us are odd and odd things happen. We need to start closing discussions sooner. Thanks for trying to clean up the backlog.


 * My opinion and suggested close: since Ottava objected to some deletions, close this and remove all tags, or let someone else do that. If he wants them deleted, he can replace the tags later. I'm not going to object to "speedy renomination," and I doubt anyone would. Otherwise, we would be done. And if he places speedy tags as sole author, that's routine, it was only that this deletion request was created that there was all this fuss. As to outing, by this time, and with what Ottava did in the process, I'd say we should stop paying attention to "outing" complaints from him. I'm not going to "out" him, but this has become a device to bop people over the head with. Notice that by complaining about outing here, he calls attention to it, thus making it easier to find....


 * In fact, if nobody objects, I'll do exactly what I recommended, since it doesn't take admin tools. Any objections? (If you object, you get to handle the mess.) Look at the time that Dracoine wasted to try to deal with this. We need to start respecting custodian time. It's valuable. --Abd 03:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I already removed the tags. I was hoping someone else would close it. No one did. I was confused why it stayed open but deletion discussions are always backlogged. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Quenya
Close as Keep. Involved close, any registered user other than proposer may revert this close, adding argument for deletion. --Abd 17:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC) - Do I really have to give a reasons why these pages ought to be deleted? ;-) It is a Constructed Language never meant to be used outside the books. The lessons provided are just a figure of the imagition of the writer(s). Laurifindil 23:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * What makes this constructed language different from other constructed languages? What makes this constructed language non-educational? -- dark lama  00:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Tolkien didn't leave anyone "in charge" of the languages, as far as I know, so the idea of an official correct form of Quenya is really in the hands of whoever writes the lessons. It's not like living languages where there is usually an academic authority to tell you what is and isn't right.  Soap 00:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * One thing, the construction by Tolkien was never finished. His constructed languages were never intended to be used in everyday life. He never wrote books about Elvish for "speakers". No need of an "academic authority". ;-) Second. Since, there is not one speaker of any of the Constrcuted Languages after the death of Tolkien, anyone can say "I know how to say ...". And there is not a sigle references in any of the lessons (e.g. no: "Tolkien wrote in "A" that verb X must be conjugaed as. Noun V must be used as Z according to "L".). The lessons provided are not about Quenya/Sindarin as Tolkien constructed it. Laurifindil 01:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd support adding the category "Neeeerrrrddddddsssssss!" to it instead of deleting. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Absent coherent argument that there is something offensive about this topic, I'd support allowing those who want to study this constructed language, including later development by "fans" and original research, in an organized way, to continue to do so here on Wikiversity. "Nerds" is an offensive term for "people interested in odd stuff that I don't care about." Wikiversity can, in its own way, create "academic authority." If there is poor research here, if there is pure fantasy, document it! Tag it! But please don't delete it, except as part of improving a resource, i.e., of better organizing material. Yes, "official," if someone wants to assert "official," is in the hands of those who create these resources. That's true for many acadademic subjects. We, as a community, need to focus on keeping project participants honest, and handling conflict, where needed, so that opinion is presented as opinion, fantasy as fantasy, original research as original research, etc. As far as I'm concerned, total fantasy is allowed as long as it doesn't misrepresent itself. And if it does misrepresent itself, the solution is generally to fix that by adding comment or even sourced facts -- or other opinion. Deletion should be reserved for junk that will just increase maintenance labor but not be supported by a user base. If obscure topics sit for years with no attention at all, then we can consider deletion. I've suggested a "slow wastebasket," a deletion tag that is dated and that, if not removed by someone showing actual interest in the topic, before the expiration, will then lead to speedy deletion. (The time period could be quite long, I'd think of three years.) --Abd 03:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems like a genuine effort at creating a learning resource about a constructed language which seems to be notable. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 09:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Social Sciences
Solved with category redirect. Guido den Broeder 19:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC) Moved the two remaining entries to: Category:Social sciences (lowercase). If that is the right thing to do, I can continue and tidy up some more. The categories are a bit of a mess here and there. Guido den Broeder 00:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * We don't really have a policy on what casing categories should use, but it has been suggested before and there seemed to be some consensus that topic categories should use "Title Case" to avoid conflict with the fact most people use "Sentence case" for resource names and resources may use a category by the same name to organize all their pages. -- dark lama  00:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I don't quite see how that can work, since category conflicts between topics and resources will remain when the category name is one word. Instead, I would propose to always include the word resources or  resource in resource categories, e.g. Category:Media (resources). That way, no conflicts can occur, and mistakes are quickly recognized. Another, similar solution is to name them as Category:Resources:Media etc. Regards, Guido den Broeder 00:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest developing a guideline when there are different possible ways to do it. I prefer sentence case always, unless the name is a proper name. It's easier to type! (Hey, I use an iPhone sometimes.) But I also would like to see a guideline, because the difference isn't worth arguing about except maybe once, to establish the guideline! Then we just would like it to be consistent, and if the discussion has been thorough enough, we can point to it when people raise the same issue again. --Abd 01:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In the past, the community rejected any proposal to limit what names participants could use for resources and categories. I think it was more of a consensus than the "some" consensus I referred to before, but thought it worth noting. Conflicts aren't possible if one word names are rejected. -- dark lama  11:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * A guideline sounds good (rather than a policy). There are a few more issues to address; the category tree is partly circular for instance, and I see examples where an article is categorized in subcategories as well as their parents. Guido den Broeder 12:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've noticed that too. There is also a problem with many duplicate categories as well. -- dark lama  12:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the suggested move and then a category redirect makes sense if only because almost everything is already within Category:Social sciences. Most of Wikiversity seems to use the lower case approach although there seems to be no policy as such and there is tolerance of capitalisation of first letters in page names and category names even when not proper names. I find it is confusing e.g., when Wikibooks uses capitals and Wikipedia doesn't. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 09:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Category redirects don't work as one might expect/hope. Pages are not listed in the category that is the target of the redirect. -- dark lama  11:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * A bit off topic. When referring to books, the proper name for a book's name is title. Most printed textbooks present their title on the cover in Tile Case, hence Wikibooks' policy. That policy is only limited to the title of a book though. Books are free to use whatever naming convention is wanted for chapters and pages by book contributors as long as its consistent. OTOH printed Encyclopedias tend to aim for accuracy even in the presentation of the names of articles, and can have complicated guidelines to ensure that. A bit more on topic. I think Universities, and possibly Schools in general, tend to have their own individualized yet uniform guidelines for things like that. Wikiversity isn't a physical school or university, nor really does Wikiversity represent just one school or university which could be why pending down guidelines for things like that is hard for people to agree on. -- dark lama  11:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting, Darklama - this is good very good info and explanation and I think worthy of being copied e.g., via Naming conventions. I note Category:Social Sciences is now empty with a deletion request. I'd be inclined to use Category redirect rather than delete, even if its not perfect. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, that makes future maintenance a bit easier. Guido den Broeder 13:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Did it myself. Guido den Broeder 19:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Wikiversity categories
Nothing left to do, no controversy. --Abd 15:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC) - Uninformative name. Emptied it and created a new Category:Wikiversity projects where I put the one page. Guido den Broeder 00:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your tidy-ups. ✅ -- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Special:PrefixIndex/Wikiversity:Sandbox/
Done, no controversy. --Abd 17:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Test pages, no substantial content that I can see. TeleComNasSprVen 06:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete for clean up. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. "Sandbox" pages in space other than user space are subject to deletion at any time, unless clear reasons otherwise are shown. If anyone wants a persistent sandbox, just create it in your own user space. I did not check every page. --Abd 20:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Measurement
Deleted. --Abd 22:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC) - Empty after moving the 3 subcategories to the existing Category:Metrology. Guido den Broeder 21:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete for clean up. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

✅ Please do not, in future, bring single-page, noncontroversial deletion requests to Requests for deletion, but use the template. We do not need to discuss templates pages like this. Where there is a category of pages to be deleted, it might be brought here, but a more efficient option is to place a speedy tag on the first page, and refer to the others as examples of the same. Thanks. --Abd 20:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What template? What category of pages, what others? No clue what you're talking about. And where can I find the grand list of controversial deletion requests?
 * IMHO the category tree deserves some attention. It is not a trivial matter and it is an important part of a wiki. I intend to prune the tree quite a bit and by posting such deletion requests here, I get a feel of what is seen as controversial and what is not. That, to me, seems wiser than to act on the thought that my initial view is by definition correct and then watch everything get undone. Guido den Broeder 22:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That may make sense to you, Guido, but is not in the best interest of the community. Here is what you do. When you see a page that, to you, should obviously be deleted, or even you simply think it should be deleted, and assuming you do due diligence, you look at how it's linked, for example, you look at history, etc., you may place, at the top of the page,, and for reason fill in your reason and sign it (as part of the "reason" is best). This will then be reviewed by a custodian looking at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. As custodians are moved by boredom, or desire to serve, look at that page, we examine what appears. And we do any of several things. If it's not controversial or needing something else first, we delete. If it's not appropriate to delete, in our opinion, we pull the tag. And if it's marginal, we might do any of several things, including bringing it here for discussion.
 * I don't recommend diving into major cleanup work until you are familiar with our inclusion traditions, which are possibly the most liberal of all the WMF wikis. We will host some pretty weird stuff, often. That's because weird stuff can be turned into learning resources! Still, there are limits. If you watch this page for a while, you'll get the idea.
 * This page should be for deletions that really need discussion. Generally, it's more efficient if a user tags for speedy deletion; if a sysop agrees, done. If a sysop disagrees, and you still think it should be deleted, then you'd bring it here. Theoretically, any user can yank the speedy deletion tag, and then, if you disagree, you can bring it here. Also if a page has been deleted, and the sysop will not restore it on request (always ask first!), then you can bring it here.
 * Any more questions? --Abd 01:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I'd rather follow the deletion policy proposal that is the combined effort of various more experienced custodians, and looks much more efficient and respectful to me. I have learned that what is obvious to me, may not be obvious to someone else. Guido den Broeder 02:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And what is obvious to others may not be obvious to you. I'll let this go, for sure. The above was a suggestion, not a requirement. --Abd 19:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome to disengage, thanks. Guido den Broeder 20:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hobbes scratch page
✅, mostly, while I was still a custodian. --Abd 17:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC) - Page created for notes that never came; long-abandoned school project. Requesting deletion of the following similar pages as well:
 * Kant Scratch Page
 * Leibniz Scratch Page
 * Locke scratch page
 * Mill Scratch Page
 * Rousseau Scratch Page
 * Spinoza scratch page

I further suggest moving the text on scratch pages in Category:Scratch that do have content to the talk pages of the respective topics, and then drop the entire category (but recategorize the draft subcategory under the category root). Guido den Broeder 01:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ but not category. I request that the user do the content transfers suggested, then speedy-tag the scratch pages. A note in this section that the text moves have been done would also be fine. Thanks, Guido. --Abd 02:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ I moved the scratch pages to subpages for the topic, and have removed the category tags. I will request speedy deletion of the categories and redirect. --Abd 21:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Never mind. Leave individual redirects in place unless one wants to change the user links to their own scratch pages. Category deletion requested. --Abd 21:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Game design
'''Snow keep, reversal unlikely. Disagree? Any registered user other than the proposer may revert this close, adding deletion support with argument. --Abd 16:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)'''

Nothing happening here, and not likely to in the near future since there is already the more encompassing Portal:Design and even that looks poor. Keeping such pages is not harmless, as Abd seems to think. It gives a bad impression of the work that is being done. Guido den Broeder 02:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If we are doing bad work, does deleting it make our work better? Shouldn't it be visible? There are some links there. This isn't worth the effort of discussing, my opinion. Surely there are better things to do. --Abd 02:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Room for improvement. Agree with Abd on this. Leutha 12:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A page that reads You're all mad! can also be improved. How is that a reason to keep? Guido den Broeder 13:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Leutha‎ has been improving the portal in good faith, enough now that it has some promise for learners and educators. -- dark lama  15:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Leutha, that's the spirit! In its new version, of course the page can stay. Regards, Guido den Broeder 16:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Game design
with redirect. I had thought to do the redirect myself, verifying that the page redirected to had what was of value from this page, but I simply hadn't gotten to it. If JWS -- or any other registered user -- wants to contest this closure, they may revert me, providing argument for a different result, removing this closure comment. Otherwise, redirection is an ordinary editorial decision, it may be made, and reversed, as ordinary edits, custodial tools are not required. This close does not prohibit a user in the future from adding content to the subject page, if that's the best place for it. --Abd 23:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC) - Same as above, not counting the rant. A page with this name may be written later, but in the meantime it makes us look bad. Regards, Guido den Broeder 02:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep.The rant has been removed. this is like a stub, but mildly useful. --Abd 02:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I closed this as speedy keep, Guido, the proposer, reopened it. I believe that is poor process, but there is only a little harm in leaving this open for a few more days. --Abd 19:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Room for improvementLeutha 12:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A page that reads You're all mad! can also be improved. How is that a reason to keep? Guido den Broeder 13:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we are all mad? --Abd 15:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The page does not say "you are all mad." It asserts that "game design is fun," it invites people interested in game design to start an account at Wikiversity, and it links to the category of game design, so these people can quickly see what we already have. This is an invitation to users interested in game design. It's useful, even if only mildly so. That's a reason to keep. And tendentious argument over silly details, trivia, whether we have this kind of page or not, has to stop. I attempted to close this, Guido reverted. It should be speedy closed, in my opinion, or left open to establish the principles here for Guido, who has expressed an aspiration to be a WV custodian and who therefore needs to understand our inclusion consensus. --Abd 19:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

As a comment on a page in mainspace, generally, this would be removed, unless it's a page about social dysfunction as a topic. A game design might start with the premise "You are all mad." Perhaps the goal of the game is to find the shred of sanity remaining. It would be up to the player what to do if it's found. The normal response with massive social insanity is to crush the remaining sane elements. That's why sane people learn to be quiet when in an insane society, and only slowly build sane groups. Premature confrontation with insanity always results in insanity winning, because insanity is not restrained. In classic Sufi psychology, it's been said, it would take ten sane people sitting down with one who is insane, to overcome the defenses of the insane. 1:1? No way. We have natural and necessary defenses against mind control, and these operate to protect our insanity just as much as to protect our sanity. --Abd 15:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I am making this request because I believe it essential for the future of Wikiversity that key pages don't look like this. If the community thinks this should be kept, then Wikiversity will never amount to anything. Guido den Broeder 19:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have made it a redirect. I hope people are happy with nthis until something better comes along.Leutha 19:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with that. Cheers, Guido den Broeder 19:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Rtufo.jpg
Deleted. Revert this close before the request is moved to the page archive if you wish to contest this deletion, otherwise start a new request to have the page undeleted. --Abd 15:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC) - Possible copyright violation of http://www.250free.com/terms.php and the url under the website the uploader alleges it had come from is a dead link. TeleComNasSprVen 06:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete – Even the domain "250free.com" is dead, so there is no way to validate the CC claim. MuZemike 01:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly should be deleted, but since it's used on a bunch of pages I'd feel better if we could decide on a replacement and do the replacing before deleting. --SB_Johnny talk 01:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems easily replaceable but here is some research: Fyi, archive.org has old archives of it. Here is the webpage. This is a copy of the page on a day that should have the UFO image. This is a UFO page that does, in fact, exist. I don't see anything discussing copyright but this has email addresses that could be messaged. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There are quite some alternatives at Commons. --AFBorchert 13:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Per nominator. Of course a replacement is welcome but that seems slow in coming. Guido den Broeder 14:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

✅ Deleted. Replaced usage of this file with file:PurportedUFO2cropped.jpg. --mikeu talk 14:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Name lesson three before clicking this link, which creates a new page
Done, no apparent controversy. This would have been more appropriate for speedy deletion, use at the top of the page--Abd 17:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC) - This page seems to have been set up in error: the material is on Psychomotor Skills in Practice! Leutha 23:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. No links; if the author doesn't respond, I think we can remove this one. --Draicone (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Never mind, it's been four years and the author's been inactive for just as long. I've deleted this one. If there are no objections, feel free to archive. --Draicone (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Digestive system
Let's try closing this again, it's been another two weeks since the first attempted close. Keep. --Abd 01:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC) - Dead project. No active participants as of 2009. TeleComNasSprVen 06:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is like a stub. It needs some kind of tag showing that it is only a very beginning of a resource, so that people won't waste time reading it, if all they want is learning and links, but others are encouraged to develop it. TCNSV, please take some time to understand how Wikiversity is working. There is no deadline for improving a resource, and there is no harm in the resource as it is. There are indeed resources that are so primitively developed that they aren't useful even as a kind of placeholder and invitation to development, as this one is. And when you find those obvious cases, it's much more efficient to tag them for speedy deletion and only come here if there is some controversy to be addressed. The speedy template here is . I don't know the best tag to use for encouraging development, maybe someone will point to it or to some. Thanks for helping with Wikiversity, in any case. --Abd 18:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Comment' Why, the page is greatly in bad shape... Why no one did even bother to fix it?? --Anonymous Uploader 04:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Categorised as an anatomy stub. Topic is appropriate to Wikiversity regardless of the amount of recent activity. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Proposed close I closed this provisionally with:
 * Closed as Keep (given the lapse of time). --Abd Involved close, see comment below. Any registered user may revert close, adding deletion argument. 17:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * TCNSV, the nominator, reopened with the comment below. --Abd 02:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done; "given the lapse of time" is not an appropriate reason for closure; I could easily apply that as a reason for deletion as well. Needs more eyes and more developments to the page, as Anonymous Uploader has noted above. Comment added by TeleComNasSprVen 01:53, 11 February 2011, note by Abd 02:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 2:1 keep, given more than two months open, this RfD was dead. Threat of deletion is not a club to use to get people to improve pages. It backfires, in fact. Some people will not work on a page with a deletion tag on it. I learned on Wikipedia that I could spend smany hours researching and fixing an article facing AfD, find reliable sources, and then the page was deleted anyway because, before I fixed it, delete votes had piled in and the closer didn't consider changes.... and the real reason was that a lot of users wanted the page Gone. Quackery, you know. But notable quackery. --Abd 03:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep There is a fairly decent lesson1. Enough here to let someone else continue rather than start anew. Guido den Broeder 14:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Redirects in pseudo-namespace Transwiki
Requests on this page should not stand forever! --Abd 01:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC) - This is just cleanup of pagemoves; don't think the redirects are particularly necessary for this project. TeleComNasSprVen 02:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've deleted all, but 16 pages in the Transwiki pseudo namespace. Redirects with an edit history and non-redirects weren't deleted. -- dark lama  19:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)