Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion

Deletion guideline | Deletion log | Archives

We welcome and appreciate civil discussion of requests to delete or undelete pages when reasonable objections are made or are likely, the advice in Wikiversity:Deletions is followed, and other options have failed. A good attitude is to explain what you have tried, ask for help or advice from fellow Wikiversity participants on what to do now, keep an open mind, accept any community consensus, and focus on how pages can be improved. Finding ways to improve pages is the preferred outcome of any discussion and consensus here. Pages should always be kept when reasonable concerns are adequately addressed. Reasons and responses should be specific and relate to Wikiversity policy or scope in some way, kept brief, and stated in a positive or neutral way. Vague reasons ("out of scope", "disruptive") may be ignored. A clear consensus should emerge before archiving a request. Often discussion takes a week or more to reach a clear consensus. Remember to add {{dr}} to the top of pages nominated for deletion. You can put "keep", "delete", or "neutral" at the beginning of your response, but consensus is established by discussion and reasoning, not mere voting.

How to begin discussion

Add {{Deletion request}} or {{dr}} to the image, category or resource nominated for deletion. Add a new section to the end of this page using the following format: == [[Page title]] == reasons why this page ought to be deleted --~~~~

Deletion requests

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.

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

Archiving of Invalid fair use by User:Marshallsumter

• See Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion/Archives/21

This space is for any unfinished business from that discussion.Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 07:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Can be closed and archived, I guess. If anyone figures out a new task in the area of "Invalid fair use by User:Marshallsumter", they can open a new RFD nomination as and when they do so. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 13:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that the task (as mentioned in Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/20#Pervasive copyright violations by User:Marshallsumter) is to check all the files uploaded by User:Marshallsumter and check if they meet the criteria for fair use. Sadly it is 1,151 files so I doubt anyone will spend the time on that. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 14:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I tend to support preemptively deleting all files (not pages) uploaded by User:Marshallsumter. The fact that many of the files uploaded by him were determined not to meet Wikiversity criteria for fair use should be grounds enough. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I thought we deleted all his files and userfied all his pages. Apparently I was wrong: File:Earth Shells to Scale.png // Earth/Geognosy/Quiz // Earth/Geognosy. When I deleted his images, I went to a page (category?) that someone else created. ... See also: This List. Apparently this user spend all day long uploading files and putting them into pages he/she created. ... @AP295: This is why I don't bother with a couple of nutcase articles in Physics/Essays--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 16:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

For anyone's interest, the upload list is visible at Special:ListFiles/Marshallsumter; a single-page view is at https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles&limit=1160&user=Marshallsumter. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 18:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The abuse of the fair use doctrine by this former participant is so egregious that I fully support nuking all image uploads. --mikeu ^talk 04:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

And I presume all pages by same participant that contain these images?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 08:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Any pages that have copious copyvio images should be deleted, along with the images. If there are pages without image violation they should be userfied. I doubt there are very many resources that have relevant learning content without copyvio. So, that leaves the resource pages open to deletion - which I support. --mikeu ^talk 01:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Mixed discussion related to User:Marshallsumter and other topics

(Moved from Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/22#User pages created as part of Computer Essentials (ICNS 141) --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 16:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC))

@MGA73: While I have your attention, I am confused about two lists that I compiled from various requests on RFD:

1. >1500 Marshallsumter files: Why we deleting Marshallsumter images?
2. Draft:Original research/Literature & Dominant group/Literature Marshallsumter sometimes delves into the "soft" (unscientific) subjects like literature where personal taste becomes important. I see no reason to delete or even read them.
3. 287 PCano files I believe these are being deleted because they are unused, yes?
4. I am not very skilled at uploading files to commons that I did not create (most of my contributions need only attribution to other files on commons.) I uploaded three files from the loc, and it was a time-consuming learning experience. Is there someone else who can do it? Perhaps I could watch till I got the hang of it.
5. After writing this I found 2497946#Exemption_Doctrine_Policy, which answers a lot of my questions.
6. I find this page a bit cluttered, but can live with it. If you want a general archiving and cleanup-just ask.

--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Guy vandegrift: Hello!

1. Many of the files uploaded by Marshallsumter did not meet the requirements of fair use (violating the Exemption Doctrine Policy). I think all "the easy files" are deleted now. So to clean up the rest we either need hard work or a brute descision to delete everything just to be safe.
2. I do not think I suggested to delete those 2 pages?
3. Yes because they are unused.
4. If you mean move files from here to Commons it is very easy: just click the tab "Export to Wikimedia Commons". If you mean files you found on the Internet it is more tricky. You need to add the relevant information manually and more important add a source. If you found a website with hundreds or thousands of good files it may be possible to do with a bot (see c:Commons:Batch uploading).
5. Great :-)
6. I can live with it too.

--MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 15:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

On #1, I am happy with the brute decision if you are. It's the uploader's responsibility to document the copyright. Recently Mu301 and I "rescued" some high-quality photos on a high-quality resource. But that was an exceptional case. Regarding #4, is (or should it be) our policy to move all Wikiversity files to Commons that are not fair use? My problem with that is we sponsor some pretty low-quality stuff. For example, instructors sometimes use Wikiversity for student submissions, and we can't delete those files until the course is over (in fact, we have no policy on deleting course-affiliated student submissions.) What do we do if the main page is a high-quality course, but some of the student submissions have no educational value?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 01:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Guy vandegrift: I have no problem if everything is deleted in #1. And I also have no problems if course-affiliated student submissions are deleted after some time (#4). But I think both should be discussed on separate topics (perhaps just move the content to #Archiving_of_Invalid_fair_use_by_User:Marshallsumter). --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 14:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I have been on Wikiversity for more than 10 years, most of the time not paying attention to such things, but I am unaware of any policy that calls for the routine deletion of student efforts that were created as part of an established course. If no decision has ever been made to routinely delete student efforts, we need to make sure the entire community is on board with any change in policy.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 17:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Deleting student efforts that were created as part of an established course needs a new discussion and concensus.

Except if it is a copyvio then it should be deleted. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 16:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Deleting ALL non-free uploads by User:Marshallsumter

Okay so it seems everyone agree that files that violates Wikiversity criteria for fair use should be deleted - not a big surprise :-D

The big question is if files should be checked one by one or if they should all be deleted. I noticed that some users more or less support to delete all non-free files.

I therefore have 2 questions:

1. Do you agree to delete all non-free files?
2. Would you like to try to save any of the files and if yes should all the files be put on a list or in a category or how do you propose to make that possible?

Ping User:Guy vandegrift, User:Dan Polansky, User:Mu301, User:Koavf, User:Omphalographer, User:Dave Braunschweig, User:AP295 and User:MathXplore that was involved in discussions recently. Sorry if I missed anyone and if you do not want to join this time thats of course okay. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 14:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

1. Yes
2. No

—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Also yes to 1 and no to 2, with the understanding that this policy only applies to MS because of the large volume of images involved.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 03:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Correct and also because MS had a lot of bad files. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 05:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

1. yes, all non-free files should be deleted, prejudiced.
2. no, I don't believe that there is anything worth saving, in this batch from MS.

--mikeu ^talk 21:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Same as Justin, Guy and mikeu: delete all Marshall Sumter-uploaded non-free files/uploads. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 17:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

It seems that there is concensus to delete. I am now adding the files to Category:Files uploaded by Marshallsumter - non-free. I have created Category:Files uploaded by Marshallsumter - non-free - do not delete where anyone can add files if they think some files should be kept (permanent or temporary). I hope it will make it easier to delete the files.--MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 11:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Just as info. Marshallsumter wrote to me on Commons (User_talk:MGA73#Wikiversity_fair_use_files_of_Marshallsumter) saying we should not delete. I do not see how it will change the result here. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 17:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Y Done Deleted and no one put any media in the do not delete category. There has been some ongoing discussion about Marshallsumter's work here and there's been plenty of opportunity to salvage whatever, so I finally took it upon myself to delete this all based on the consensus above. This means that many pages will have missing files, so that will require a pass to fix, assuming that those resources don't get deleted. I appreciate that Marshall put forth substantial effort and I don't relish deleting all that, but the community was pretty clear and I suspect that many of his subpages will be deleted as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, while deleting these images I did also take a look at several of them and many were even public domain by their very nature but marked as fair use, such as simple line graphs that just represent publicly available, factual information. I didn't feel like those were worth porting over to Commons as they were PNGs instead of SVGs and recreating them would be pretty trivial with a spreadsheet program. It's pretty shocking how much effort went into all of these pages and images that were just off base. :/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Facilitation

Trivial questions don't save what is a page with learning outcomes that are scarce (WV:Deletions]). I don't care whether this gets deleted, moved to userspace or moved to Draft:Archive. This was proposed for deletion in 2016 by Dave Braunschweig and was "saved" by adding questions that in my view are trivial and do not save the article. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 17:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Delete. I don't think the page achieves anything. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Draftify, pending vote to rescind the 6-month draftspace deletion rule (latest vote change)--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 11:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Archive, Delete, or Userspace (roughly in that order: vote cast on behalf of Dan Polansky by Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 17:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)That's accurate. I guess I prefer Archive. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 17:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Draftify (Move to Draft namespace) - I contributed to this page in good faith. Deleting this page rather than preserving it somewhere will further decrease my motivations to contribute Creative Commons content to the Commons on this wiki, with the understanding that it is OK and considered a "best practice" to delete some good faith Creative Commons contributions on this wiki. A relevant rational may also be found here. Limitless peace. Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 04:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The "good faith" talk is, in my view, entirely beside the point. Faith is not in question in deletion discussion, merely the aptness of the material for inclusion on a project, or inclusion in a specific namespace. For example, Wikiversity is not a repository of good-faith small children's creations or their analogues, or at least its mainspace is not. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

As an aside, the word you are looking for is "rationale", not "rational". --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky: I do not accept your premise that "Wikiversity is not a repository of (small children's creations)". ... Also, there is a parallel discussion at Wikiversity_talk:Deletions#Proposed_modifications, and it may remove most of the need for Draft:Archive. Michael Ten has pointed out that pages in draftspace could remain permanently. Looking back into the history, I discovered that I voted for the 180 limit. I had forgotten all about that vote, but my own choice of wording jogged my memory: I voted for a 180 day limit because the decision to delete old drafts seemed like a foregone conclusion (Groupthink - who needs it!)--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 13:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, then, from what does it follow that Wikiversity is such a repository? Which guideline, policy or scope statement? By small children I mean, say 0-6 years olds. Should e.g. scans of all pictures drawn by such children be uploadable as "educational content"? And if not pictures, should their first writings be uploadable? Why do they need publishing; does their local harddrive storage not serve the creative purpose enough? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 13:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I overstated my remark about children's work: For the most part, it belongs in userspace or draftspace. And, we need the parent's permission. But colleges teach courses in elementary education. I once walked into such a course and somebody was reading a children's book to the entire class. But we have no entrance requirements for Wikiversity, no minimum IQ is needed. Keep in mind that our differences are matters of personal taste (not factual reality.) The question at hand at Wikiversity_talk:Deletions#Proposed_modifications is what requirements we wish to have for a page to reside indefinitely in draftspace.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I propose that we close this discussion with decision to delete, as author voted for that option.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 08:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• I deleted the page. If a curator or custodian disagrees, feel free to undelete. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 18:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Decadic numbers

Arguably, this is not good enough for the mainspace; I have no objections to this being in the draft space or the userspace. Issues: 1) The page appears to be an original research but is not marked as such; 2) it introduces the term "decadic number" as an original terminological invention, as far as I can tell, but does not disclose this to be the case; 3) the term "decadic number" is unfortunate since what is meant is something like "infinite decadic number"; 4) even the term "number" is questionable since it is not clear how these so-called numbers can have anything to do with quantity (but then, complex numbers arguably also do not express quantity, or a single quantity); 5) no attempt to formally define what a decadic number is made; this so-called decadic number appears to be a mapping from positive integers to the set of digits 0-9, to be interpreted from right to left; 6) e.g. "Addition of the decadic numbers is the same as that of the integers" is clearly untrue: integers are finite discrete quantities; ditto for "Multiplication works the same way in the decadic numbers as in the integers".

Perhaps this can be salvaged rather than moved out of mainspace. The first thing to do is add external sources dealing with the concept or state that this is original invention; and then, address the issues. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

As with Surreal numbers the choice is between userspace and a subspace where users could be encouraged to cooperate. Unlike Surreal numbers, I am unaware of any application in physics for this topic. The ideal place would be Discrete mathematics/Number theory because the Olympiads is a high school thing. I will contact the author about both pages--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 09:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

If the page should stay in mainspace, I see no reason why it could not stay at Decadic numbers; I don't see moving it around in mainspace as an improvement. But my position as explained above is that it is not fit for mainspace. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Decadic numbers and Surreal numbers have enough that they should be parallel subpages of the same page. I have suggested to the author that they should either create a top page, or find a top page and group these resources together.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 16:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Rational numbers/Introduction

The page does not do anything that Wikipedia does not do better: Wikipedia: Rational number. The page contains unfilled tables that seemed to be intended to explain something, but since they are empty, explain nothing. The page has no further reading, revealing no attempt to find best complementary sources online, probably of much higher quality. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Now I see why you were kicked off Wiktionary. Wikiversity has a long and established tradition of allowing student efforts. This page is no worse that Student Projects/Major rivers in India, a page which I randomly selected from Student Projects. I am trying to recruit students to contribute to Wikiversity. Until the Wikiversity community changes its mind about allowing student projects, I will continue with that quest. I will change the template so as to not discourage a person clearly interested in teaching mathematics, and I want you to refrain from placing rfd templates on student efforts. Use {{subpagify}} instead.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 12:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I was blocked in the English Wiktionary for "racism" and more. In the English Wiktionary, I often defended pages nominated for deletion and rather rarely nominated anything for deletion. The English Wiktionary has almost no useless pages and is the 2nd most often visited project after Wikipedia. By contrast, the English Wikiversity has very few useful pages, a state of affairs that I am trying to turn around, step by step, following processes and guidelines that I did nothing to establish: WV:RFD and WV:Deletions. That is as far as persons go (ad hominem); as far as process, I hoped here to have a discussion with editors about whether this nearly useless page (Rational numbers/Introduction) should be moved out of the mainspace, and unless consensus developed for my position, I stand no chance to prevail. Rational numbers/Introduction is not a "student project" in any sense of "project" but rather example of all-too-typical junk. Again, I do not decide, others do with me being only a single voice/input. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Now you are on the right track! Wikiversity might be in a transition period between allowing all sorts of pages, to morphing into a selective institution. But the process has to change from the top-down, not from the bottom by deleting one page at a time. When I say "top", I am referring not to the administrators, but to the community at large. At present, RFD has nothing near the quorum required to implement the changes you (and others) are seeking. Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 13:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The only reasonable way going forward, to my mind anyway, is to follow WV:Deletions and not worry about the precedent of its countless violations. Since, should we take e.g. Relation between Electricity And Magnetism, existing since 2011‎, as an example of a page to be kept, then we must keep nearly everything. There are too many pages like that, and therefore, if we take their aggregate as a binding precedent to follow, we end up in trouble, unable to delete junk. It seems only fair to proceed according WV:Deletions, especially when using RFD process which gives potential opposition enough time to object. Such a procedure violates neither established guidelines nor processes; if it "violates" anything, then preexisting extreme lenience/tolerance toward junk, lenience that, as far as I know, was never codified into a guideline. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 13:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

No. Please don't use this page as an agenda for reforming Wikiversity. Go to the Colloquium or write an essay. Having said that, I did delete Creating Relation between Electricity And Magnetism because that follows both guidelines and established practice.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 13:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually, lenience is given an advantage when pages are up for deletion (See Special:Permalink/2615245#Wikipedia's_deletion_policy for evidence that deletion requires somewhat of a super-majority.) But you are not calling for deletion of low quality pages. Instead you want them out of mainspace. We have room for compromise. But, as I said before: RFD is not the place to discuss this. If you want, I could take "Wikiversity:What-goes-where 2024" out of my user-space and we could discuss it there.Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Advanced C Programming

Delete or move to user space or to draft space. Nothing to learn from here. I see no subpages. The page was edited in 2024 by Anonymous Agent, but it did not result in any useable content, from what I can see. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete unless Anonymous Agent who has recently edited it has any intentions on expanding it to something useful in the short term. If you don't, AA, would you be interested in hosting it in your userspace and working on it at your own pace until it's ready to be published in the main namespace? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Totally agree to delete this page. I once requested to delete this page but was rejected. Happy to delete it now ! Anonymous Agent (discuss • contribs) 09:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Y Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Unused files (again)

In Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/20#Thousands_of_unused_files there were a discussion about deleting unused files. It was a result of Wikiversity talk:File Review that got stuck because of the big work it will require to check and clean up all files.

Wikiversity:Scope define what the scope is and unused files could mean that they are not in scope for Wikiversity. The file could be in scope for other wikis and if it is it should be moved to Commons.

Since the original discussion many files have been deleted. For example:

• Non-free files are deleted if unused because they violate the policy.
• Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/22#Unused_files_uploaded_by_Robert_Elliott
• Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/22#Unused_files_uploaded_by_Katluvdogs
• Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/22#Unused_files_uploaded_by_PCano
• Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/22#Unused_files_(user_uploaded_1_file_only)
• Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/22#Unused_files_(user_uploaded_2-5_free_file_only)

The outcome of all this seems to be that files uploaded by User:Young1lim should be kept even if unused and the same with WikiJournal files.

The rest of the files can either be moved to Commons (if license, source and author etc. is good) or be deleted.

The unused files can be seen at Special:UnusedFiles and right now there are 1,447 files. About 1,350 when we exclude files by Young1lim).

Since not many users have the time to go looking at unused files and since it will take a lot of everyones time if I create lots of deletion requests here I have a suggestion.

Either I mark the files with {{Prod}} and then after 90 days files can be deleted or we discuss it here and agree that all unused files older than 90 days can be deleted by any admin that is willing to spend time on cleaning files.

Everyone can "save" a file by adding it to a page somewhere or move it to Commons if they think it is usable.

The latest deletion requests have been closed (and deleted) by User:Koavf and Koavf have not blindly deleted all files but moved some to Commons. And it is not a high priority so it will not force anyone to spend time on checking files.

So my guess is that if there is concensus to use that approach then Koavf or other users with the rights to delete files will go through the files and either delete or move to Commons whenever there is some time to spare on files. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 10:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I remain happy to do mass deletion and copying to Commons where appropriate. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Media & Democracy

Redundant category; created in error. Please excuse. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (discuss • contribs) 20:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Y Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Particle Sphere Theory

This article has been marked by Omphalographer in Oct 2023 for proposed deletion for over 3 months and therefore it can be deleted. The deletion rationale was this: "baseless fringe science theory". However, since original research is allowed in Wikiversity, I am not sure that being fringe is grounds enough for deletion. Sure enough, search for "Particle Sphere Theory" finds almost nothing. The page has only one reference, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/unify.html. Should I go ahead and delete the article? Alternatively, would adding a disclaimer about the content being fringe, not part of established science, help? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Original research is one thing, crackpottery is another. The Bloom clock is certainly original research, but it's not a pet theory about how ghosts secretly control the weather or something. I actually think that talking about genuine scientific disputes and how they were or could be proven wrong in principle would be pretty interesting (e.g. if someone wanted to discuss how we came to learn that w:en:aether doesn't exist or how we know that w:en:action at a distance is possible, even tho it was rejected by several major scientists for centuries). This is just a single guy saying stuff, so until or unless there becomes at least some vocal minority advocating this idea, it can be deleted here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Crackpottery accurately describes this article, and it does not belong in mainspace. Here is why I favor moving it to the author's userspace (instead of deletion):

1. Nobody from Wikipedia has complained about it (the means there is no harm to our reputation for allowing it to remain.)
2. I don't have time to investigate whether the user is a young child (in which case the child should be allowed to grow as they learn by doing.)
3. While it is clear that this article is meaningless, we are not equipped to judge the veracity of all articles, especially in a field like physics, where even good articles can seem like nonsense until they have been seriously pondered. Wikiversity lacks the resources to act as a refereed journal.... In the past, I strongly advocated moving pages like this to userspace (or Draft:Archive if there are multiple authors.) But as a bureaucrat, my role is to advise and enforce established rules: Both deletion and moving to userspace are appropriate actions for this page. It would be best if the actual decision were made by a community of editors who seem to be doing a good job at cleanup.--Guy vandegrift 23:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I am fine with moving the page to User:TyEvSkyo userspace as a quasi-deletion (this user is the sole author); I see no need for a hard delete. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I just moved the article and a quiz to userspace (without redirects.) I don't care if anybody deletes this from userspace. Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 08:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Template:Nowiki

Undeletion requested.

Useful for formatting. Tule-hog (discuss • contribs) 04:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

There is a standard wiki syntax for the purpose. I therefore think the template is not required and of low value; it just adds another syntax. I yield to consensus or even plain 50% majority in this case. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 04:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I now checked W:Template:Nowiki. It says, i.a., "The resulting tag will be processed as a real tag by further substitutions and transclusions, so this should not be used for documentation. Rather, it is used by metatemplates to generate nowiki tags." So it seems the primary reason for the template is metatemplating. If we want to have metatemplating in Wikiversity, the template would then be needed. Do we need or want that? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 05:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

See w:Template:Codenowiki. It's a convenient macro. Tule-hog (discuss • contribs) 10:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)