Jump to content

Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion

Add topic
From Wikiversity
Latest comment: 1 day ago by S. Perquin in topic Ninefold Resonance Theory
Shortcuts

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

  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 --~~~~

Scope: If an article should be deleted and does not meet speedy deletion criteria, please list it here. Include the title and reason for deletion. If it meets speedy deletion criteria, just tag the resource with {{Delete|reason}} rather than opening a deletion discussion here.

Undeletion: 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. The first line after the header should be: Undeletion requested

Deletion requests follow.

Literature

[edit source]
Latest comment: 9 days ago4 comments1 person in discussion

I move/propose to move to user space, of KYPark (talk • email • contribs • stats • logs • global account). 1) This material cannot be meaningfully maintained and expanded since it has no stated selection criteria (it is not clear which literature should be listed). 2) The quasi-database format (e.g. in Literature/1963/Popper) does not seem particularly useful. 3) The current material, where it is filled, is of unclear utility. I find perhaps the quotations most interesting; but these would be for Wikiquote? Even if the quotations would be for Wikiversity as well, the problem 1) still needs a solution (which literature?). 4) Taking e.g. section Chronology in Literature/1975/Ricoeur, it is unclear what the content is supposed to be, that is, chronology of what it is. A broader problem: the design of sections and the intended content and selection criteria for the sections are so unobvious that they need specification, but none seems available.

Disclaimer: I created the page Literature myself to simplify tracking of the subpages (which are listed there), but the subpages were all or nearly all created by KYPark.

Venue: I could have used proposed deletion but since so many pages (subpages) are involved, I (tentatively) chose Request for deletion, to get more eyeballs.

Alternative: should this stay in mainspace, it should somehow indicate that this is KYParks's provenience and that he is the author. This could be done by renaming it e.g. to Literature (KYPark). I prefer moving to userspace, but if opposition develops to it, renaming like this would also be an improvement.

--Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 15:53, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have moved this to user space. Some items moved could have possibly been not from KYPark (I noticed one by Marshallsumter); it is hard to know which they were. Resulting root page:

I am not happy not meeting the four-eye principle here (no explicit support), but as it is, almost no one is participating on RfD, so I went ahead despite the unsatisfactory state as for explicit consensus.

I can imagine restoring the pages to Literature (KYPark), LitDB/KYPark or the like. For this to happen, KYPark would have to explain the design of this quasi-database. The pages needs to have some utility for the viewers, not just KYPark; if they are only for KYPark, user space is a good fit. Since he is apparently no longer using the KYPark account (or is he?), I am pinging his new account: User:KayYayPark. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 13:57, 22 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Some templates apparently involved in this LitDB: Template:Navigate20c, Template:Cite plus, Template:Cite onlyinclude. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:28, 22 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I now discovered somewhat similar material is at Wikipedia: Special:PrefixIndex/User:KYPark, usually organized by years but not authors (but some author pages are there). --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:19, 23 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Modern Chinese Proverbs and Sayings by Hé Xiǎojū / Kenny Ho

[edit source]
Latest comment: 13 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

(I go to RfD instead of proposed deletion since I expect opposition.)

Too little to learn from here, IMHO. The page mainly links to pages outside of Wikiversity written by the creater of the Wikiversity page. I find the title misleading as well; the page contains Chinese phrases coined by the page author and these cannot be properly called proverbs until the language users at large recognizes them as such. The material seems to fail to go beyond what would be a self-promotion (caveat: most content can be interpreted as self-promotion; one has to differentiate).

Moving to user space instead of outright deletion is fine by me. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:13, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the feedback and the opportunity to clarify.
My intention with Modern Chinese Proverbs and Sayings by Hé Xiǎojū / Kenny Ho is not self-promotion but to document a long-term cultural and linguistic project in creating modern proverbs, so that they may be studied, critiqued, and preserved in a structured way. Wikiversity’s scope of allowing original research and educational resources seemed appropriate, as the project can serve as a reference point for language learners, cultural studies, and comparative literature.
That said, I understand the concerns expressed. In the interest of avoiding conflict and respecting the community’s guidelines, I am comfortable with the page being moved into user space rather than being deleted outright. This way, the material remains available for anyone who wishes to study it, while addressing the concern of it not yet fitting mainspace standards.
If the page is moved, I would be grateful if you could kindly point me to the new user-space link, so I may continue maintaining it properly.
Thank you for your consideration.
Ho Siew Khui KennyHoProverbs (discuss • contribs) 03:41, 19 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Template:Advise

[edit source]
Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion

(This template was created by Dave Braunschweig.)

I struggle to understand why this template is a good idea. It is now sometimes used instead of deletion; and then, it has the effect of deletion (in that the content is no longer visible but for the revision history) but without any deletion process at all (not even proposed deletion) and ends up being de facto speedy quasi-deletion. What the template does is that it creates a soft redirect to Wikipedia. I struggle to understand for what pages this should be done. We could place this template to a large set of encyclopedic headwords, but this has not been done. I do not see what headwords have a specific property indicating use of this template.

As an alternative to use of this template, I propose to delete or rather quasi-delete (e.g. by moving to user space) pages that are decided to be unfit for Wikiversity mainspace.

The template is currently used in 14 pages in the mainspace. It was used in more pages before I removed it from some of them some time ago, but it almost certainly was used in less than 100 pages. A list of pages where this is used, for reference: Musical direction, Face perception, Xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus, Reticuloendothelial cells, Zagatala State Nature Reserve, Windows service, .NET, Engine vacuum, Khanom Khrok, Piaget, Bophelong, New Delhi Institute of Management, Aaajiao, and Talagang. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:15, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Dan Polansky At the time, I had a bot running that would delete pages with the Advise template after 30 days. I found that tagging pages with the template helped users understand why the page content had disappeared vs. just deleting it and/or trying to explain to them elsewhere. It was a time saver as well as hopefully more informative for users.
Any pages with Advise on them can be deleted. Whether or not you keep the template is up to you. I found it helpful, but I don't foresee having time to use it myself going forward.
Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:13, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Dave Braunschweig: Thank you for the explanation; it now makes sense. I propose to delete the template since you are no longer active to be deleting the pages maked by the template after 30 days and no one seems to have picked up the slack (is that the phrase?). But if the template is not deleted, it is good to know that I can feel free to delete the pakes marked by the template. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

User:Alandmanson/Hymenoptera of Africa - Pompilidae - Pepsinae - Auplopis

[edit source]
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This page is no longer required --Alandmanson (discuss • contribs) 20:40, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

checkY Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:18, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

User:Alandmanson/Hymenoptera of Africa - Pompilidae - Pepsinae - Auplopss

[edit source]
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This page is also no longer required --Alandmanson (discuss • contribs) 20:42, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

checkY Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:18, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

A Translation of the Bible

[edit source]
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This was in RfD before and was kept (here), so I am using RfD again instead of proposed deletion.

I propose to quasi-delete by move to user space. From what I can see, this is a highly incomplete English translation of the Bible: only very few chapters/subpages are bluelinks and the rest are redlinks. The translation was started by globally banned/locked User:Poetlister, so it is unlikely to continue. In this state, the learning outcomes are scarce, of the readers. Admittedly, editors could learn by doing their own translations here for the redlinked chapters, but after Poetlister was blocked, no one seems to have been interested (or have I overlooked someone?). Readers interested in English translations of the Bible are better served by existing complete translations both in Wikisource and elsewhere, many of them executed with remarkable professionality and competence. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:58, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Userfy or delete are both fine options. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:26, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

What to do with remaining Marshall Sumter pages

[edit source]
Latest comment: 10 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I created Wikiversity:Colloquium#What to do with remaining Marshall Sumter pages in Colloquium, especially since its concerns fairly many pages. But since it deals with quasi-deletion (by moving to user space), I am also posting a notification here (for case that someone is only monitoring requests for deletion, as unlikely as it seems). --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 05:36, 22 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Korean/Words

[edit source]
Latest comment: 8 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

(I go to RfD instead of proposed deletion since many pages are affected.)

I proposed to quasi-delete, i.e. move to userspace of the main (or sole?) creator, KYPark (talk • email • contribs • stats • logs • global account).

The page is organized a little bit like a dictionary. It makes it redundant to Wiktionary except that Wikiversity allows original research and there does seem to be original research there. Thus, its being organized as a dictionary would alone not necessarily be a problem.

Where I see a problem is in the organization and execution/implementation. Consider Korean/Words/가다, which seems rather typical of the subpages (some subpages are like categories and transclude the pages for individual words):

  • On the putative definition line, there is this: "한곳에서 다른 곳으로 장소를 이동하다", apparently(?) in Korean. That does not seem to fit well into the English Wikiversity.
  • There seems to be some original research into etymological relations between Korean and European languages in the "Comparatives" section (from what I recall, the English Wiktionary rejected this kind of content from KYPark). Admittedly, it is marked using "This is a primary, secondary and/or original Eurasiatic research project at Wikiversity", so it could be tolerable, but even so, one has to wonder whether Wikiversity wants this kind of fringe science/research or outright pseudo-science.
    • Fringe science: fringe physics has been moved to user space before. This would be fringe etymology. But then, original research is allowed.

Deletion is not required; moving to user space suffices, I think. Alternatively, one could at least rename the pages to make it clear from the title that this is not Wikiversity voice but rather KYPark voice, e.g. "Korean/Words (KYPark)/..." or "Korean/Words/KYPark/..." (recall the "Fedosin" pages featuring the name "Fedosin").

Methodology: I see almost no methodological notes spanning the words at Korean/Words. And yet, if this is original research inventing new etymological connections, surely there should be some general considerations/analysis on how to proceed and how that manner of procedure differs from mainstream etymology?

Prefix index (max 200 items?):

--Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:33, 24 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ninefold Resonance Theory

[edit source]
Latest comment: 1 day ago31 comments3 people in discussion

This page is rank pseudoscience. Wikiversity seems prone to attracting cranks and charlatans to advertise their pseudoscholarship since they cannot do this kind of promotion on other Wikimedia projects. We have had this discussion before when it came to parapsycholoy and cold fusion. Seems the nosense is creeping back in. ජපස (discuss • contribs) 14:19, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

So what would you suggest? Move to my own namespace? Because I do find it interesting to name this philosophical theory. I think it's important to pursue freedom of ideas, even if supporters of positivist, materialist philosophy disagree. My theory, which relies on idealism, but attempts to provide an explanation, from idealism, for materialistic philosophy, is meant very seriously. I do not see it as a fake, made-up theory on purpose. S. Perquin (overleg • bijdragen) 14:37, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think these ideas probably do not have a place at WMF-sponsored websites. You can always set up a private blog or forum discussion. Kids these days speak highly of discord servers. ජපස (discuss • contribs) 15:25, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
What about all those other ideas and theories on Wikiversity that come from original research? Why are those allowed and a metaphysical theory not? Why is Plato allowed to talk about four basic elements (fire, air, water and earth), but I am not allowed to talk about nine (basic) vibrations, while my theory may even be closer to the truth than Plato's theory? I thought Wikiversity was about learning, gaining new ideas, reflecting on them, critiquing them, refining them, and thus arriving at new knowledge? Kind regards, S. Perquin (overleg • bijdragen) 15:31, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Plato is recognized as an academic subject worthy of study. Your original research is not equivalent. ජපස (discuss • contribs) 16:01, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
@ජපස: Can you clarify which Wikiversity policies you have consulted and thus form the basis of your nomination? (I am not yet making any substantive comment on the nomination itself.) --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 15:41, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Wikiversity:Community Review/Fringe research. Note the principle that research here must be up to standard. This obviously is not it. ජපස (discuss • contribs) 15:55, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Wikiversity:Community Review/Fringe research is not a policy, from what I can see. It is a page where two decisions about excluding particular fringe research were made. Which specific passage of a policy (can you quote it) would then lead to deletion of Ninefold Resonance Theory? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 15:57, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
It references the relevant policy and sets the precedents I outlined above. ජපස (discuss • contribs) 16:00, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Good; can you now name the relevant policy and identify the relevant passage ideally by quoting the passage or its part? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Do you not see it on the page? ජපස (discuss • contribs) 16:06, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
On the question of what the precedent cases in the domain of philosophy are: I moved to user space this article: User:MarsSterlingTurner/Ontology. That was utter and overt nonsense, and it was pretty easy to articulate what makes it nonsense (rather than merely claiming it is nonsense). --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 15:45, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
The precent cases of Parapsychology and Cold fusion are a tad more remote since they deal with pseudoscience rather than pseudophilosophy. That makes quite a bit of a difference since, to my mind, a lot of what officially counts as philosophy is pseudophilosphy, but I struggle to see that if a Hegelian pops up in the English Wikiversity, I should be able to move his Hegelian articles to user space. That is not to say that no bad philosophy can ever be moved to user space, merely that the detection is quite different from pseudoscience. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 15:50, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
There is pseudoscience implicitly and explicitly included in this page. ජපස (discuss • contribs) 15:56, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I do not see your having providing any substantiation, even a minimal one, of your claims. By contrast, I engaged with the content of the page here: Talk:Ninefold Resonance Theory. If all that is required is an unproven assessment by a Wikiversity non-contributor that a page is pseudoscience, that opens Wikiversity to a possible disruption. Your nomination is per se not likely to be a disruption, but your failure to substantiate or articulate could create a problematic precedent. But maybe I am being too pedantic or risk-averse; I don't really know. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:02, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
"expressions of deeper, ninefold vibrations" is absolute blatherskite masquerading as a testable claim. It is pratically a textbook pseudoscientific proclamation. ජපස (discuss • contribs) 16:04, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
How is it pseudoscientific when it is put forward as a piece of philosophy, not empirically testable/falsifiable science? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:07, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Just because you sweep your claim into a different closet doesn't insulate it from being nonsense in the context of the other closet. If I just say, "my idea is only philosophy, but perpetual motion still does work," the claim is still pseudoscientific. ජපස (discuss • contribs) 16:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
From what I can tell, you have quite a couple of concepts mixed up. Giving up here for now; perhaps someone else will chime in. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:10, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think I see perhaps where your motivation to be combative in this conversation is coming from and I have initiated a discussion on your user talkpage. ජපස (discuss • contribs) 16:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I realize that my philosophy could be seen as pseudoscience. But I think, and this is philosophy, that every way of looking at the truth is also based on a philosophy. I personally think that positivist science should not claim to have a monopoly on matter, which I feel it does. If you're talking about how time would work, then it's okay. If you're talking about how God would work, then it's also okay. But if you're talking about how matter would work, then you have to be careful. It feels as if the nature and functioning of matter has been 'hijacked' by a physicalist, materialist, and perhaps even atheistic philosophy. It is true that all elementary particles have been discovered by microcopes, but why should you not be allowed to philosophize about what these particles are and where they come from? Furthermore, I believe that every philosophy is a 'pseudo-philosophy', except for Socrates' philosophy, namely: "The only thing I know is that I know nothing." We can come up with all kinds of ideas about how the universe works, but we will never fully understand it. But we can try to develop a theory that is as close to the truth as possible. God will not enable man to become God himself. But again, that's my philosophy. S. Perquin (overleg • bijdragen) 16:01, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
That this is passing for "education" is a problem. In the past, I had suggested that Wikiversity ought to be shut down because it didn't have the immune system to deal with pseudoscholarship. I thought there was some positive efforts in that regard, but it appears pseudoscholarship of this sort has crept back in. ජපස (discuss • contribs) 16:06, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Do you mean that people should only receive education according to the positivist paradigm of the 21st century? I always say: don't teach people what to think, but how to think. By the way, I found the message of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions very interesting. I believe that science is not a fluid development (i.e., one thing follows another in the form of an addition), but rather a step-by-step change (i.e., an old paradigm gives way to a new paradigm). It could well be that a groundbreaking development will suddenly cause us to view the universe in a completely different way and regard all other ideas as pseudoscience! S. Perquin (overleg • bijdragen) 16:39, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I mean people should receive education that is up to the highest standards. The page I nominated for deletion is not up to those standards as it contains blatant misrepresentations, falsehoods, pseudoscience, and parochial ideas that have never been properly vetted by scholars. ජපස (discuss • contribs) 16:47, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Could you explain exactly what makes it pseudoscience? Which of the things I speculate and philosophize about do you think are truly impossible? S. Perquin (overleg • bijdragen) 17:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Your first mention of "vibrations" is classic pseudophysics. ජපස (discuss • contribs) 19:00, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
By "vibrations", I mean a kind of oscillation from a higher-dimensional sphere that we cannot observe or measure. I don't know how else to put it or formulate it. S. Perquin (overleg • bijdragen) 19:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
You are free to formulate it any way you want.... but what you are writing right now is classic pseudophysics... especially when it comes to the stuff you cannot observe or measure. ජපස (discuss • contribs) 19:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Why does it seem like such a strange idea that not everything can be observed or measured? Is it possible to observe or measure love? But love is just as real as a table or a chair, isn't it? They are all experiences. Or do you see it differently? S. Perquin (overleg • bijdragen) 19:41, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Disclaimer: I am not saying this should stay in mainspace; moving to user space is quite possibly the appropriate action. What I now have to calmly deliberate on (there is no hurry; and there are other editors around) is whether the arguments I presented at Talk:Ninefold Resonance Theory suffice for my official support for moving the page to user space as too bad a philosophy. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:45, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps it would be a good idea to create a template called {{Original philosophy}}, alongside {{Original research}}? That new template could state that the article concerns a new philosophy and that it may be viewed as pseudo-philosophy by some people who do not support this philosophy? Then it can remain in the main namespace, but it will be clear that it is a philosophy that is not necessarily based on truth (just like all other philosophies, anyway). S. Perquin (overleg • bijdragen) 17:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion&oldid=2756326"