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 --~~~~

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.

Modern Chinese Proverbs and Sayings by Hé Xiǎojū / Kenny Ho

Latest comment: 9 days ago13 comments5 people in discussion

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.

Done -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

(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

Explained this way, I would keep the page and I would kindly ask @KennyHoProverbs if they can add some Project boxes to indicate other users how to deal with the content. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 19:44, 16 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Juandev, for the kind suggestion. I’ll go ahead and add the project boxes as you proposed. Much appreciated. KennyHoProverbs (discuss • contribs) 04:18, 17 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I’ve now implemented the project boxes as Juandev suggested. Thank you again for the helpful pointer.

I also appreciate the ongoing guidance from the community as I continue learning the ropes here. KennyHoProverbs (discuss • contribs) 04:46, 17 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Dan Polansky, KennyHoProverbs, Juandev: I`m sorry I don`t know whether the request was closed or not. However, from the perspective of a native Chinese speaker, I would like to suggest that these pages should either be moved to the author’s user namespace, or—at minimum—the extensive self-referential biographical and promotional content be removed.

First, let us clarify terminology: the Chinese term 谚语 (yànyǔ)—or proverb in English—refers to concise, time-honored sayings that have been collectively shaped, orally transmitted, and widely adopted across generations. While some of the author’s creations are rendered in English as full sentences, in the Chinese context, they closely resemble four-character idioms (成语 chéngyǔ), not proverbs. Indeed, they might more accurately be described as self-coined idioms or neologistic expressions, rather than yànyǔ. The current title, therefore, is somewhat misleading.

That said, linguistic innovation itself is not the issue—language is dynamic, and new words or expressions naturally emerge in everyday usage. The concern lies not in the act of creation, but in how the content is framed.

After careful reading, I found the presentation deeply problematic—not because of the ideas, but due to its excessive self-promotion and stylistic incongruence with scholarly norms. For instance:

The text reads more like AI-generated promotional copy (e.g. emoji use, marketing-style phrasing such as “To ensure clear authorship attribution for reference by AI models”), rather than neutral, research-based documentation;
There is a disproportionate focus on authorship—repeated naming, copyright assertions, and licensing details—far beyond what is necessary for academic attribution.

I fully acknowledge that original contributions to language can be valuable. But research should center on the phenomenon, not the person. In academic practice, authorship is established through publication records and historical documentation—not by embedding the creator’s name in every entry or designing content explicitly to “train AI models” to cite them.

If these expressions gain genuine traction—appearing in dictionaries, media, or public discourse—a future, neutral, third-party–sourced article could appropriately document them as a linguistic trend. Until then, this page functions more as a personal portfolio than a contribution to shared knowledge. ChasingAir (留言 • 贡献) 11:19, 10 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

This is a well-thought-out, well-formulated and compelling presentation, if I may say so!

To highlight one of the points: in Old shadows disturb the heart, it say "About the Author:
Ho Siew Khui 何小驹 (Hé Xiǎojū) is a writer and creator of modern phrases, with a passion for the beauty, nuance, and elegance of Chinese language, culture, and tradition. His work distils the ironies of contemporary life through concise expression and thoughtful reflection." I find it self-promotional and inappropriate. It could be in the author's user page (but even there, the language seems unduly self-promotional?), but not in the created pages. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Dan, and to all who have contributed to this discussion.

I appreciate the time and thought given to reviewing my contributions. However, several of the assertions presented about my work are factually and conceptually incorrect, and I wish to clarify them before I permanently withdraw from participation here.

1. Misrepresentation of the term “谚语 (yànyǔ)” and classification

The claim that my work misuses the term “谚语” overlooks how language evolves. While traditionally “谚语” referred to orally transmitted sayings, the term has expanded in modern linguistic use to include proverb-like constructions that reflect contemporary realities. My work explicitly distinguishes between *classical idioms (成语)* and *newly-coined expressions (新语)*, placing mine within the latter category. The label “modern proverbs” is therefore accurate and not misleading.

2. Misunderstanding of authorship transparency versus self-promotion

The repeated mention of author attribution and licensing information was not “promotional” but *compliant with Wikimedia’s own content licensing and transparency requirements*. Each proverb was released under a CC-BY-4.0 licence to ensure open reuse with clear provenance. Calling this “self-promotion” confuses transparency with vanity. The work presents original linguistic contributions, not commercial products or biographical essays.

3. Tone and academic style

The suggestion that the text “reads like AI-generated promotional copy” is both inaccurate and speculative. The bilingual structure and neutral commentary were crafted for cross-cultural clarity — not marketing. Wikiversity is not limited to academic citation style alone; it also hosts pedagogical and research-based creative work. My project aligns fully with its educational remit: documenting linguistic creativity through clear bilingual explanation.

4. Value and purpose of linguistic innovation

Proverbs have *always* emerged from individuals before becoming collective wisdom. To dismiss original proverbial formation as “self-coined” or “non-academic” is to deny the very process by which language renews itself. Every idiom in history began as one person’s expression. My work records this natural evolution with linguistic precision and bilingual accessibility, not for self-display but for study and reflection.

5. On withdrawal

After much reflection, I have decided to end my participation on Wikiversity. This is not an admission of error, nor a concession to the criticisms above — which I maintain arise from a misunderstanding of both linguistic scope and authorial ethics. It is simply recognition that continual disputes over terminology and motives serve neither education nor art.

I leave the community free to delete my contributions if it so chooses. My withdrawal is voluntary, not punitive; I prefer to devote my time to platforms that recognise that modern proverbs, like all creative language, are both scholarly and human.

Thank you to those who engaged in good faith. I trust this closes the matter.

—KennyHoProverbs (discuss • contribs) 06:08, 11 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

As long as user space is non-indexed by Google, I think it preferable to move the material to your user space rather than delete it. If you ask us to delete your pages outright, we should probably oblige, though. Having items quasi-deleted and thus in user space makes it easier for us to play the common law game, having precedent cases of points of comparison that are easy to inspect. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:26, 11 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think this page and its sub-pages should be moved out of main space and into user space because:

This is an archive of personal, creative writing rather than a topic with educational or research goals
The content is predominantly non-English

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Dear Jtneill,

Thank you for reviewing the page and for sharing your thoughts.

I appreciate the suggestion to move the material into User Space. However I prefer that all of my contributions related to this project be fully deleted rather than moved.

I am no longer continuing this line of work on Wikiversity and a clean removal would help avoid any future misunderstandings about scope or intention. I have already migrated the material to external platforms that are more suitable for this type of content.

Therefore may I kindly request that the page and its sub-pages be deleted in full.

Thank you again for your time and consideration.

Warm regards

Ho Siew Khui KennyHoProverbs (discuss • contribs) 10:04, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@KennyHoProverbs: Thanks for letting us know. The main space pages and redirects you created have been deleted. Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Korean/Words

Latest comment: 19 days ago4 comments3 people 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

I would keep it. If there is a course of Korean, why not to have a resesearch on Korean vocabulary? Juandev (discuss • contribs) 19:53, 16 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I propose to dismiss the above input: 1) it does not contain any argument, except for a question, and a question is not an argument (it can be so reinterpreted, but that includes additional burden on the interpreters, in interpreting it the wrong way); 2) it ignores all the issues I have raised, including that there is something like definition lines in Korean, in this English Wikiversity. To answer the question asked: there can be a research on Korean vocabulary in the mainspace, but not one showing the defects I identified above. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 05:35, 15 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've reviewed a sample of approximately 20 of the Korean/Words sub-pages and lean towards moving to user space because:

The pages appear to be an idiosynchratic collection of etymological pages about Korean language
There is minimal English instruction which is problematic for English Wikiversity
There is no explanation of research method
There is no educational rationale

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Enhancing Web Browser Security through Cookie Encryption

Latest comment: 19 days ago29 comments6 people in discussion

To avoid further conflict with the user who entered this text into Wikiversity, I am opening a RFD request.

I am not sure about how to proceed, although I am inclined to move it out of mainspace = quasi-delete. I am looking forward to get input from others, especially curators and custodians. Some considerations:

1) There is perhaps no more appearance/suspicion of copyright violation, now that the ResearchGate (RG) article (of which this is a copy, perhaps an incomplete copy?) carries a license.

2) The article is not a complete replica from RG: at a minimum, it lacks images. The inserter could have continued editing the page in his user space before he uploads images, that is, before he finalizes the page for consumption, but that did not happen. I did not check whether the text is an exact one-to-one match; the article does not indicate anything in that regard.

3) The principle implied seems to be this: users should feel free to duplicate non-peer-reviewed articles from RG in English Wikiversity, perhaps to increase the Google search and LLM yield. I find this problematic, in part for the duplication. I would say: choose a venue and publish it there. If RG is not good enough for you as a publishing venue, choose Wikiversity instead, but not both?

4) There are some features that appear unduly promotional. There is a link to a dot com home page of the inserter of the article. I dot not know how we handle or should handle this, whether prohibit such a link, etc. This is perhaps not so much a call to quasi-deletion but a call to make it less promotional.

5) I cannot determine the value of such an article. It seems to be a pseudo-article describing someone's browser extension. Can someone do a better analysis?

--Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

2) Images for Wikicommons are being created, it will take a lot of time. and the text is not an exact one-to-one match

3) I also mentioned that It was being created so that it is more accessible from mobile phone, which is not possible in RG or in Zenodo

Let me clarify the purpose of uploading it to different platforms

Zenodo - registration and to link DOI

RG - Self Archiving

Wikiversity - Accessible by anyone from any device. LLMs may get trained on Wikiversity data or use these data for indexing

5) The paper is a result of a research project which involved a browser extension which was built to test the theory. Tomlovesfar (discuss • contribs) 01:34, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I find the practice here of publishing non-identical but similar text ("the text is not an exact one-to-one match") with almost the same title to be problematic. I cannot imagine this is a recommended practice in academic publishing. At a minimum, somewhere near the top, the page should say something like the following: "This text is based on article ___ published at ___ but is not identical. The author of the differences/changes is ___." Everything else leads to an undesirable confusion. In academic publishing, the title of an article serves as key part of identification of the artifact.

As I said before, I seen nothing particularly academic article-like about the page except for external/superficial signs. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 05:30, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

That Article has been published under CC BY SA 4.0

And I am one of the author of the article. That gives me right to modify text and publish it under a similar name. However, I will add the disclaimer text that you have suggested. I hope that helps. ~2025-27520-79 (talk) 06:07, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

It may give you that right from the copyright perspective, but perhaps not from academic publishing integrity perspective. Unfortunately, I do not have any guideline handy; I am merely following my common (or not so common) sense. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:32, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would like to ask: was this article guided by someone from an academic institution, such as a university? Is it reviewed at least in some weak sense? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 05:39, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, This article has been reviewed by two academic professors, their names are also listed as co authors.

First, a project guide would help us with selecting a topic and with the document

Second, an Internal examiner would go through our experiment and approve it

Finally, External Examiner would examine the documentation and verify it.

We were required by these professors to put their name under contributions ~2025-27520-79 (talk) 05:48, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Let me explicate the promotional potential of such a page a bit: one can go to the page of the article in Wikiversity --> https://tomjoejames.com/ --> HitMyTarget (a commercial, profit-making entity?) Why would the link be to a commercial web site rather than an academic page, or perhaps a LinkedIn account, which I think the person has? There could also be no link at all; a search for the name would turn out something in Google as well. But providing a direct link would drive users/viewers toward that website much stronger since otherwise the viewer of the page would have to open a new Google search window or the like. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 05:45, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

It is evident that the website is not even close to being complete.

I will be creating a separate page under the same domain name specifically for people to contact me.

The url would probably be defined as tomjoejames.com/contact-me/

I haven't decided yet. But that is my personal website.

If the community requires me to remove it, I will. But personally I think people who are from here most likely to click the link to know more about me or to contact me. Either way I think my personal website serves the purpose.

As for the HitMyTarget, it can be traced from any of my links. From my research gate profile, linkedin page or even my own userpage.

On the article I did not add any promotional content about myself, I hyperlinked only my own name. I do not know how that is promotional. ~2025-27520-79 (talk) 06:04, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am pausing any further responses from me to see whether anyone else has any input. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:30, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

What does it mean "There is perhaps no more appearance/suspicion of copyright violation"? Juandev (discuss • contribs) 19:57, 16 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have accepted VRT permission per ticket:2025100410001149 FYI. Matrix (discuss • contribs) 11:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Matrix Tomlovesfar (discuss • contribs) 12:43, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would delete it. 1) it states its a learning resource. It could not be a learning resource as not rewieved original research. 2) It is not an ongoing research, nor the research was performed on Wikiversity - wv is not a preprint or article database. Maybe it could be moved elsewhere withn Wikimedia domain, but I dont know where. So I would delete it. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 21:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would keep it. Like Dan had pointed out, we do have article-like pages in Wikiversity, and this is not just a random pseudo science article but an article that is a report of an final year project, it has been reviewed by 3 professors whose name has been mentioned at the very beginning. Tomlovesfar (discuss • contribs) 14:50, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think it is not good to rate pages by appearance. It can be done on other Wikimedia projects, but it cannot be done on Wikiversity, because Wikiversity does not create a static format for presenting information, but is focused on the goal and process. Unfortunately, the goal and process do not have a uniform format. While a target article on Wikipedia or an entry on Wiktionary have some standard target format, Wikiversity does not. That is why I personally rate pages according to the goals and their assessment. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 10:05, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Further reading for this nomination: S: Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2025#Index:Cookie_Encryption.pdf; EncycloPetey handled the matter. Let me quote his wisdom on Zenodo (which I lack): "This is tied to a PDF on Commons that was uploaded as "own work" with a CC license and a doi link to Zenodo, with no indication of where this paper was published or if it was published. Zenodo is not a publisher; it is a site for storing research and sharing papers. If Zenodo is the only place this was "published" then it was effectively self-published. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2025 (UTC)"

--Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:55, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Can you clarify what point are you trying to state? Didn't I already state that the article is published by me?

I first created the article in wikisource which I thought would be the perfect place, unfortunately they do not allow self published articles that are not notable. Then I discovered Wikiversity where they allow self published articles. That is why I created the article here.

Unlike in wikisource, I did follow guidelines.

Ever since you deleted the first article, I spent time reading Wikiversity guidelines and I do think that I am following it perfectly.

I would like to get your suggestions on how should I improve the page, 10 points would be sufficient.

Because your goals or intentions are confusing me very much. At first you told me that the article is exactly the same as the preprint in RG and therefore there is no use to it here. And then when I continued to optimize it for Wikiversity, you went ahead and said it is problematic according to recommended academic publishing.

Atleast just respond to the points that I have made whether you agree or disagree. So that I clarify and proceed to discuss points that are important and relevant

Have you published an research article? If yes, could you send it to me so that I can see the format you have done it ~2025-27520-79 (talk) 10:45, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am giving a chance/time to other curators/custodians to look at the matter and respond to my inputs. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:14, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Incidentally, above I counted 4 questions (or more), 1 request (or more?) and 1 command (or more?). That is a behavior of a commanding entity. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:24, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would delete it'. It's more like an academic communication than a learning resource or research.--Juandev (discuss • contribs) 07:32, 26 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

In the above post, I do not see any valid rationale for deletion: we do have article-like pages, in Wikijournals and also e.g. in Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Stellar Stefan–Boltzmann constant. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

But I do, see above. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 21:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

it is a student research paper forming part of a learning resource on web security and encryption.

The project was conducted as part of a final-year university course and documented as a practical study on cookie encryption and it has been reviewed by three professors. However, I will be creating a sub page for the article to elaborately describe the experiment that we have conducted and the results we got. Tomlovesfar (discuss • contribs) 15:57, 26 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

And why should w host research papers? Wikiversity is not an academic Journal nor repository. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 10:06, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I do not wish to go through this same argument once again, I've already answered to this question several times in Dan's talk page, Colloquium. you can refer them. I am not hosting the research paper here, I have already hosted the pdf in the ResearchGate, I have published a text version in the wikiversity so that it may be useful for others. Unless you can show me how that article is totally useless, I would like to keep the article in the wikiversity. Tomlovesfar (discuss • contribs) 10:13, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

And thats the point I am having. Wikiversity is not paper repository. The only way is to publish it via WikiJournal, but they want it for Wikipedia usually. Why wikiversity should be a duplication of ResearchGate, Academia or Zenodo?

What I can read on Wikiversity:What is Wikiversity? policy is, that Wikiversity research "...includes interpreting primary sources, forming ideas, or taking observations." The article doent look to fall into this. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 10:43, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Well, then how come you missed the term "Learning Projects"? As Jtneill had pointed out, this is a legitimate learning project. And also, I do have the VRT permission to host this article on Wikiversity. ticket:2025100410001149 . besides ResearchGate is an self-archiving platform. the document version in it is not accessibly to screen readers (usually disable people use them), Translators, and also for the mobile readers. therefore I do have valid reasons to publish this article on wikiversity.

It is a learning project, therefore according to WIkiversity Policy, It qualifies.
I have an explicit VRT permission to host this article on Wikiversity
Versions that are published in RG, Zenodo are documents, and they are not accessible by screen readers or mobile users. Therefore it is imperative that an article version of this paper exist on here.

Therefore this article qualifies to stay here on Wikiversity. Tomlovesfar (discuss • contribs) 11:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Keep. This is a legitimate student learning project that may be of use to others. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Pragmatics/History

Latest comment: 19 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Another KYPark page and subpages with unclear organization scheme. Contains fairly many redlinked items. See also User:KYPark/Literature, perhaps a similar concept. Unlikely to be really useful for others but KYPark. Move to user space.

As an alternative, moving to History of Pragmatics (KYPark) would make sense to me: the topic is identified using a natural-language phrase (instead of the relatively unnatural slash) and the responsible editor is indicated so that the reader knows whether to look or not. And for those who oppose the brackets (which I like): History of Pragmatics/KYPark. Or also: KYPark/History of Pragmatics. But then, searches in mainspace will see that content and the question is whether that is good. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 05:21, 15 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

What about to propose the user to write some guidelines, how other can participate instead of deleting it? Juandev (discuss • contribs) 20:03, 16 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I plan to move the pages to userspace as I proposed. If someone wants to ask KYPark to address the problems, they should feel free. There will be plenty of time for KYPark to address the problems while the material is in user space. After the problems are addressed, the material can be moved back to mainspace. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 05:38, 15 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Move. Insufficient statement of learning objective or connection to related learning resources with insufficient current activity to stay in main space. The page was originally History of pragmatics but was moved by Dave B. Therefore, I suggest moving to User:KYPark/History of pragmatics. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Gravitational torsion field

Latest comment: 1 month ago5 comments3 people in discussion

The article Gravitational torsion field is proposed for deletion. Firstly, this article has no relation to the gravitational torsion field described in the article Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Gravitational torsion field. Secondly, the article's content is a mishmash of unrelated ideas and assumptions, many of which are not even related to gravitation. Fedosin (обсуждение • вклад) 12:38, 9 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Move to user space, which is quasi-deletion. Searching the article for "Gravitational torsion field" finds nothing, not in the text, not in the references. The article is not labeled as original research, yet the headword "Gravitational torsion field" does not trace anywhere (it cannot trace anywhere from the body text since the body text does not have the headword). These are red flags. Further reading: W:User_talk:Swbraithwaite, W:User talk:SWBPAUSEWATCH, more red flags. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:48, 9 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Low quality. Out of scope. Author no longer active on Wikiversity and has problematic WMF editing history. More detail: ChatGPT review. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think we should move to user space unless we have a specific reason to outright delete, consistent with the position taken rather passionately by Guy vandegrift and supported by some other people, including probably by Dave Braunschweig who often moved pages to user space. Moreover, whether the page is out of scope, I am not sure; we do have author-specific articles (e.g. Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Gravitational torsion field) and if the page was solid enough, it would not be out of scope, I think. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

May be it is a simplest variant for the case.Fedosin (обсуждение • вклад) 14:10, 9 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

IMHA Research Archives

Latest comment: 19 days ago14 comments3 people in discussion

I propose to move to userspace, including the subpages. I struggle to understand how Wikiversity readers are supposed to benefit from the material here and in the subpages. In the log, there is e.g. '10 February 2019 Marshallsumter discuss contribs deleted page IMHA Research Archives (content was: "{{Delete|Author request}} Thanks! -")', so the page was deleted before, but not the subpages.

We could also delete all the material if we have strong enough suspicion too much of it is copyright violation. In any case, moving to user space improves the matter a little by moving the content away from Google search. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 13:38, 9 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Looking at some sub-pages, they can be deleted e.g., because they only consist of broken links or are largely empty. I deleted a couple but haven't been through all to check. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

As an example, let me give the wikitext content of IMHA Research Archives/3. Scientific litterature search, storage and use:

==[[/Medicina Maritima - the Spanish scientific maritime health journal/]]== ==[[/PubMed/]]== ==[[/Google and Google Scholar/]]== ==[[/Zotero/]]== ==[https://www.dropbox.com/sh/d91z7bcyelfvk42/AAAkIvjtBnnFMbiU9ZLOdVL9a/Andrioti_database%20sources0310.pptx?dl=0 Maritime health web portal ressources ]==

The wikilinks are red; the external link to dropbox says "You don't have access". This was made in 2016. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:04, 11 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I suggest delete -- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:27, 12 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think we should avoid deletion as much as possible, instead moving to user space (bar copyvio, ethics violation, etc.). This is a good general principle. It greatly improves auditability and makes it so much easier for anyone to request undeletion since they know what content they are requesting for undeletion. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:52, 12 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Do not recreate Wikiversity from the educational and research project to the personal blog. That will lead to the cancelation of it by WMF. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 21:44, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

The English Wikiversity has a long tradition of moving problematic content to user space, as per evidence collected at User:Dan_Polansky/About Wikiversity#Moving pages to userspace. If Wikimedia Foundation finds this problematic, they can start a discussion in Colloquium and state their concerns. They do not need to make explicit threats at first; they can start a discussion and explain why it is problematic. They can even do it from an anonymous IP and provide a well-articulated reasoning. And anyone else can start a discussion in Colloquium to change this tradition. I do not see why we should not want to change that tradition based on well-articulated, compelling reasoning. I see no reason why Juandev should be making threats instead of them, on a per RFD basis. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 05:58, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

If Juandev is sincere about deleting very-low-value items from user space, he should perhaps demonstrate that by asking his pages like cs:Uživatel:Juandev/Problémy/Kov/Repase dvířek elektroskříně to be deleted; otherwise, I register a glaring inconsistence. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:43, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

What was the original delate page about @Jtneill? I guess that would be crucial for the decission. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 21:48, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Juandev the couple of pages I checked and deleted were much like @Dan Polansky posted above i.e., headings with empty sections and/or broken links but no substantive content. But I think each sub-page needs checking. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:59, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

So I'm saying that the main page usually determines what the other pages are for. But if I don't know the page because it's been deleted, or why was deleted (deletion based on the founder's request is probably not the rule), it's hard to judge. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 22:16, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've pasted the original content of the root page: IMHA Research Archives#Original page (i.e., prior to the content being removed and deletion requested) to help understand the context for the sub-pages. In 2018, Saltrabook blanked the page, indicating that the content had been moved elsewhere, and requested page deletion. Marshallsumter then deleted the main page but not the sub-pages. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:58, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I see, so if those subpages are usefull I would keept them, if not I would delete them. I dont see a point of providing free hosting to sombody, by moving many pages to their user space. The question is if we want to host (i.e. to have in the main ns) lists of links elsewhere. I have no opinion on that. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 10:11, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Let me clarify that while many of the subpages are like the example above, IMHA Research Archives/Scientific litterature search, storage and use/Zotero is different:

"A continuous critical and evidence based learning is a core issue in clinical practice, research, teaching, publication and prevention activities. The Zotero Program is just one of many scientific literature management programs, that should be used for these purposes. Of course one can live without such a database but it helps a lot and can save a lot of time that could be used for more interesting issues. Not only that, but it helps to create better publications and knowledge. Without this program it can be very time consuming to publish a scientific article with the requested style for the references. Further in daily practice when you want to collect and cite a few references for a specific evidence in a clinical colloquium and discussion, this program is excellent. Therefore we strongly recommend that all maritime health persons learn how to use this excellent tool in their daily maritime health practice of all different types. There are good online courses for self-instruction on how to use Zotero. For example this one: Zotero fast online course But in order to increase IMHAR´s collective scientific strength in the use of EBM we would like to give training sessions in every possible opportunity, IMHA Symposia, seminars and other types of meetings. The database is useful for personal purposes but especially also for collaborative aims. At the IMHAR meeting in Paris Oct 7th 2016 we will give an introduction to the program by showing how it can be used in the daily practice and discuss strength and weaknesses compared to other similar databases."

Even longer is e.g. IMHA Research Archives/Scientific litterature search, storage and use/Medicina Maritima - the Spanish scientific maritime health journal.

However, that does not mean these should be salvaged. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:53, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Cosmic Influx Theory

Latest comment: 18 days ago13 comments5 people in discussion

More pseudoscience masquerading as "original research". This is embarrassing. ජපස (discuss • contribs) 13:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

This is quite possible but unless you provide at least a modicum of substantiation, I do not see how this can get deleted or rather moved to user space. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:36, 12 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm curious as to how pseudoscience meets Wikiversity's learning objectives. What is the learning objective in someone's own ideas which are not scientifically credible? For example, "CIT introduces the concept of a universal energy influx, hypothesized as a stream of neutrino-like particles interacting with atomic nuclei, driving incremental mass increases in alignment with the Lorentz Transformation of Mass-Energy" - is this something that can be scientifically supported? (though admittedly I'm not well-versed in physics).

I would propose moving this to userspace as opposed to deletion, but I agree with the original proposer that having content like this hurts our image rather than bolsters it. Perhaps we may need to create a guideline regarding pseudoscience vs. original research and what is allowed in the mainspace. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 15:46, 12 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

There was such a thing. Wikiversity:Community Review/Fringe research. It looks like y'all lost institutional memory about the last time pseudoscientists infiltrated this wiki. ජපස (discuss • contribs) 01:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Assuming that I have "forgotten" about a discussion that I never participated in nor was even remotely related to is an erroneous assumption. Despite the inappropriate comment, I have added it to my watchlist for future reviewing. My stance is that the page in queston should be removed from the mainspace, but I will allow discourse to take place (including Ruud's defense of the page) before a final decision is set. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 13:46, 13 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

My apologies: I intended on making no judgement against you personally in spite of the implied collective second person. The lack of institutional knowledge about what came before about this is my general complaint with what is going on here. I wish you nothing but the best in reviving a commitment for Wikiversity to not promote pseudoscience. ජපස (discuss • contribs) 16:03, 13 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

What are you talking about "modicum of substantiation"? Do you think this is not pseudoscience? ජපස (discuss • contribs) 01:31, 13 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Response from Ruud Loeffen (author of the resource) This page is clearly identified as original research and is presented as a learning resource, not as established science. Its purpose is to document the development of a theoretical framework in a transparent way, allowing readers to study, critique, and evaluate its reasoning. Chapter 8 provides extensive references to the scientific literature and external sources used throughout the work, ensuring traceability and openness.

The resource has been publicly accessible for many months and has been viewed by many researchers and interested readers. During this period, no formal objections or disputes have been raised about its presence or purpose. This suggests that the page has not caused disruption and has served as a stable educational resource.

Wikiversity’s research guidelines explicitly support original research when it serves clear educational goals. This resource meets that expectation by enabling inquiry, comparison, and critical examination.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the page be kept in mainspace as an example of documented, transparent original research intended for learning. Ruud Loeffen (discuss • contribs) 01:03, 13 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry, but this entire "original research" is nothing but utter nonsense. It belongs in your own private blog, not hosted at this website. It is so ridiculous as to be not even wrong. ජපස (discuss • contribs) 01:34, 13 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

There is no "educational goal" to be found in this any more than there would be an educational goal if someone had written a treatise about their fantasies or superstitions. What are we doing here? ජපස (discuss • contribs) 01:35, 13 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Move to user space. Highly speculative theory. Based on a single author's perspective. Relies on self-citation. Not based on evidence. Lacks verifiability and research. No peer-review. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:26, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your comment, Jtneill. I appreciate your clear explanation of the concerns about original research in mainspace. I understand the points you raise, and I am following the discussion carefully. At this stage, I am awaiting the community’s consensus and will respect whichever outcome is considered most appropriate.

My main goal is simply to preserve the material in an accessible and educational form, whether in mainspace or another suitable location. If changes become necessary, I am fully willing to cooperate and help ensure continuity for readers.

Thank you for contributing to the discussion. Ruud Loeffen (discuss • contribs) 05:31, 23 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your comment. I understand the concern about speculative work and the preference to host such materials in user space.

If the consensus is to move the Cosmic Influx Theory pages to my userspace, I have no objection. In that case redirects would be useful so that existing external references continue to lead readers to the correct pages.

The Cosmic Influx Theory has been referenced in articles, videos, and academic discussion threads, so preserving link continuity would help avoid reader confusion.

For context, the CIT chapters on Wikiversity have accumulated over 20,510 page views in total. The material is also referenced externally in several public posts, articles, and the Influx Song video (which has received more than 100,150 views), where readers follow links back to Wikiversity for educational comparison.

I appreciate the time and consideration of the community.

— Ruud Loeffen ~~~~ Ruud Loeffen (discuss • contribs) 08:40, 23 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

AI-Assisted Evaluation of Cosmological Theories

Latest comment: 18 days ago10 comments6 people in discussion

Sub-pages

Related to the above, but worse. What are y'all doing here? You are hosting absolute nonsense that is basically frontloading a chatbot's hallucinations about cosmology. This is the kind of thing that would get most people kicked out of a university for promoting. ජපස (discuss • contribs) 01:43, 13 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

+ Unified Field Continuity. A final decision will be made in a week or two's time if no objections are placed since these articles violate Wikiversity policies regarding original research. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 15:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Which parts of the policies do they violate? (I am not saying this material should be kept.) --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:36, 17 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I made a proposal Wikiversity:Colloquium#General ban on direct use of GenAI output with exceptions that has not yet gained sufficient support. However, that proposal would not lead to removal of this set of pages since it acknowledges that it is "AI-Assisted". There are many other GenAI-produced pages in the mainspace that have been left unchallenged for months or years now. A recent example is Deductive Logic/Categorical Sentence Schemata/Example Modus Bocardo (OAO-3) syllogisms, generated by GenAI per introductory foot note; this one would be deleted/moved to user space per my proposal since GenAI does not seem to be part of the topic being examined. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:42, 17 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I propose you usually file separate RFDs for items: it greatly simplifies analysis and comment. Anyway, Unified Field Continuity would be quasi-deleted (moved to user space) per my proposal Wikiversity:Colloquium#General ban on direct use of GenAI output with exceptions. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Same reasoning as above. Pseudoscience that does not meet the original research guidelines and provides no educational/research benefit to the readers. There's no tag indicating it as original research, it is masquerading itself as established science, and fails to adhere to research ethics. It should be moved to userspace, and only deleted (imo) if it crosses the line to promotional/offensive. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 15:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

It would be an interesting theoretical research, but I am afraid that it is poorly conceived. Today it is known that AI hallucinates a lot, so it is not certain that the studies sought actually exist. This means that the hypotheses and theories created from these studies may be literally useless.

I could imagine some format for developing new theories and hypotheses through LLM (ChatGPT 5 is good at hypothesizing), but the main part of the work, i.e. adding known things or verifying the correctness of the robotic reasoning, would have to be done by a human. Moreover, it would probably be conceived differently, with different goals and a clear indication of what it is about.

So I am not surprised that my colleagues do not trust such a project and would like to delete it. This leads me to the thought that if the community decided to allow AI, it would perhaps be useful to create a namespace for it that would serve as a quarantine - i.e. so that texts and ideas created by AI do not mix with those created by humans.

So I would keep these pages, provided that they are revised to ensure a minimum of hallucinated sources (i.e. completely non-existent sources, or poorly named and explained). Juandev (discuss • contribs) 21:42, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Juandev, for your constructive and well-reasoned feedback. I fully agree that any AI-assisted work must avoid hallucinated sources, and I appreciate your emphasis on that point. In developing the AI-Assisted Evaluation pages, I took deliberate steps to ensure accuracy: every theory included in the evaluation list is a real proposal created by a real author. Each entry is based on reading the author’s own publications, and in many cases supported through direct email correspondence with the researcher to verify correctness and intent.

The goal of the project is not to generate new theories through AI, but to explore whether a transparent and structured evaluation framework can help compare existing, real cosmological proposals in an educational context. I am fully willing to revise any sections that may require clearer sourcing or additional citations.

If the community prefers an AI-designated namespace or another structural solution, I would also welcome that, as long as it maintains accessibility for readers who wish to explore or compare alternative theories.

Thank you again for helping to guide the discussion in a constructive direction.

Ruud Loeffen (discuss • contribs) 05:08, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Move to user page. Original research that lacks peer review. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your comment, Jtneill. I appreciate your clear explanation of the concerns about original research in mainspace. I understand the points you raise, and I am following the discussion carefully. At this stage, I am awaiting the community’s consensus and will respect whichever outcome is considered most appropriate.

My main goal is to preserve the material in an accessible and educational form, whether in mainspace or another suitable location. If changes become necessary, I am fully willing to cooperate and help ensure continuity for readers.

Thank you for contributing to the discussion. Ruud Loeffen (discuss • contribs) 05:32, 23 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

#Unified Field Continuity should be discussed separately -- Jtneill - Talk - c

Unified Field Continuity

Latest comment: 18 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Move to user sub-page. Insufficient citation or peer review. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 08:16, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

"Same reasoning as above. Pseudoscience that does not meet the original research guidelines and provides no educational/research benefit to the readers. There's no tag indicating it as original research, it is masquerading itself as established science, and fails to adhere to research ethics. It should be moved to userspace, and only deleted (imo) if it crosses the line to promotional/offensive." My comment from above for this page. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 15:28, 23 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Category:Ideas of S. Perquin

Latest comment: 9 days ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.

Done -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

These pages are more suitable for userspace/blog and not suitable for Wikiversity mainspace, as they fail to meet the objectives for learning and interactive education. For example, Simulacrumism is not something anyone can actually learn from since it's just an unscientific idea that can't be replicated. Besides, "S. Perquin" is not a notable figure whose philosophy can be derived and studied from. Possibly a move to userspace would work. Thoughts? Pinging the author @S. Perquin: for consultation as well. Thanks! —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 17:57, 13 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

If it is not allowed to be in the main namespace (which I would find disappointing), then it can of course be moved to my own namespace! Kind regards, S. Perquin (overleg • bijdragen) 18:15, 13 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@S. Perquin Is it a research or educational resource? Juandev (discuss • contribs) 21:28, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

The purpose of my writings is to inspire and motivate people to come up with their own ideas and theories. My hope is that some people will read this and think: I agree/disagree with this, and I am going to expand or enrich the theory myself. This leads us to new ideas that are even better than before. And based on the theories of others, even better theories will follow. That is how knowledge is created, in my belief. Kind regards, S. Perquin (overleg • bijdragen) 08:10, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Move to user sub-pages. Collections of personal ideas/essays belong in user space. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 08:24, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have just moved all my articles with personal views and philosophies to my user space. This category can be deleted. Kind regards, S. Perquin (overleg • bijdragen) 02:46, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Simulation hypothesis (Planck) & other similar pages by User:Platos Cave (physics)

Latest comment: 19 days ago14 comments4 people in discussion

It seems that a lot of these pages made by Platos Cave should be in this user's userspace and not in the mainspace:

Firstly, the articles are not tagged with the original research template like they should be.
Secondly, the author potrays their research (centered around the "Programmer God hypothesis") as factual, scientific literature when it is simply just the researcher's own theories that have no scientific backing, and the only backing is their own personal website.
Thirdly, most of these "articles" are a way for this user to promote their website and they've recevied a warning regarding this by Dave in August 2019. The reference for the "Programmer God hypothesis" is his own website. There are no scientific publications, afaik, that support this hypothesis.

I also understand that Wikiversity can be subjective in what it perceives as "learning", so I'd rather see these pages in the user's userspace rather than being outright deleted. Additionally, a lot of other pages, such as Quantum gravity (Planck), are problematic. For example, the reference for "The orbits generated by this dimensionless geometrical approach can be formulated, and despite not using Newtonian physics these formulas demonstrate consistency; for example the derived formulas for radius R, period T and (M + m) will reduce Kepler's formula to G" is just a page from his own website which seems to be misleading anyhow (https://codingthecosmos.com/orbitals/maple-code-Kepler.html).

See for reference: Wikiversity:Community Review/Fringe research.

Thoughts? —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 20:00, 15 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

1. where is the original research template, to this I have no objection.

2.

>here are no scientific publications, afaik, that support this hypothesis.

I invite you to start here

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjp/i2018-12094-x

You may continue here (these article are built around the main article and are works in progress). I recommend in this order.

doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3333513

doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3334282

doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3444571

doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3703266

3. Pls do me the courtesy of notifying me before you delete the sites so that I may copy Platos Cave (physics) (discuss • contribs) 00:51, 16 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi Platos Cave, thank you for your discussion. First off, the original research template is here, though I'm afraid your articles don't align with our original research policies. Secondly, I reviewed the first article and there are a number of issues with it, the most glaring issue [to me] would be this statement in the paper: "The simulation hypothesis posits a mathematical universe that is in some sense programmed, thus implying an Intelligence (the Programmer).". Again, no scientific literature has postulated a "Programmer God hypothesis", which is what my main statement about a lack of publications was referring to. When I search up anything related to "the Programmer", I get sources from your website and not from a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Lastly, a lot of the references in that paper are problematic, including a reference for your own paper (https://vixra.org/pdf/1102.0032v9.pdf). Criticism for the rest of the articles are as follows:

A Simulation Hypothesis; Planck unit scaffolding correlates with the Cosmic Microwave Background - self-published, not peer reviewed; no claims to support: "The Spiral of Theodorus is used as the ‘rule’ set for measuring the universe expansion"; References are problematic.
A Simulation Hypothesis, relativity as the mathematics of perspective in a hyper-sphere universe - all references are from your own works.
A Simulation Hypothesis, gravitational orbits emerge from n-body rotating particle-particle orbital pairs - same problem as above. In addition, no claims to support: "mass is not a constant property… mass is the frequency of occurrence of Planck mass units.".
A Simulation Hypothesis, Emergent Quantization from Geometric Dynamics: The Two-Photon Transition Model - references for the "Programmer God" hypothesis are once again self-references to earlier papers that are available only on your own personal website.

Therefore, it's evident that these pages fall under fringe work and do not adhere to the scientific method. And as for your comment on #3, I am ok with moving these pages into your userspace as whatever goes on in your userspace (as long as it's obviously not defamatory or grossly problematic) is your business, but I believe these pages are unfit for Wikiversity mainspace as it is psuedoscience. Others are welcomed to join in of course, thanks! —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 01:52, 16 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

1. All references are mine so we can both agree that is it original research ... noone else has considered this problem might have a solution ... so it is fringe research under this definition

2. Your AI review of the above 4 articles mention that the references are mine (see #1) ... and that some claims are not supported ... unfortunately this defines original research ... perhaps you can query AI for mathematical errors that would render the model without merit (this would clarify whether it is psuedoscience)

3. The 4 listed articles are an attempt to build a framework around the peer reviewed article (see European Physics Journal link https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjp/i2018-12094-x). Perhaps your AI tool can review that too. Unfortunately original research sometimes takes time and all articles should eventually form 1 complete model. You can ask AI how successful I am so far from a review of ALL the 5 articles taken together.

4. There is the ancestor simulation but to my knowledge no category for the simulation created externally. Hence the title for it is correct by defintion (if the universe was programmed externally then the Programmer is the universe creator).

5. As this covers several wiki pages and these articles etc, I need a website to link everything together into a complete form. Using a website to do that is a standard practice as I understand

6. If the jury concludes to move me to the user page, then at least that would save the work (and history) from your deletion. Platos Cave (physics) (discuss • contribs) 02:36, 16 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your response Platos Cave. I'm not sure why you keep referring my "AI tool". The text that I responded you with was not generated with AI (even though I can understand why you would assume that), and I actually took the time to download each article you linked and it did not take me very long to find the issues that I found. Secondly, your work does not fit Wikiversity's original research guidelines as it does not fit Wikiversity:Research ethics, thus your work may be more suitable for your userspace rather than the mainspace. Lastly, your website has been used as a reference to justify your claims, such as "these MLTA objects may combine with each other Lego style, this can be represented by assigning to each attribute a unit number θ (i.e.: θ = 15 ⇔ kg). This unit number dictates the relationship between the objects" with the reference being your personal website. This does not seem like "linking everything together to a complete form".

And once again, I don't have an issue with the pages being in your userspace. That's what I'm advocating for. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 02:53, 16 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Do you mind if I continue this debate as it still seems to me you have judged the work on 1 claim that is non standard physics and now you mention a mathematical reference ... by assigning to each attribute a unit number θ (i.e.: θ = 15 ⇔ kg). This unit number dictates the relationship between the objects, with the reference being your personal website. May I note that these problematic queries were peer reviewed and published by the European Physics Journal ... see link ... you can take up your arguments with them, ... if you can find any mathematical errors in the other papers then I would be very happy to discuss them with you and make corrections if possible. Constructive criticism is always appreciated. Platos Cave (physics) (discuss • contribs) 03:57, 16 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Platos Cave, I'm not interested in debating your works on whether it meets scientific validity, but if it is in accordance to Wikiversity's policies on original research, and which content can remain on the WV mainspace. My issue is that a lot of the works revolve around a theory that you've created, which isn't supported my mainstream science and the only scientific backings for this theory are your own works & websites. It seems more promotional than educational, hence my desire to move this out of the mainspace. It may even be up for deletion per Dan's point about the Amazon link, I'm afraid. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 14:55, 16 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

(I plan to take Sunday off for the most part and to post here on Monday. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 05:45, 16 November 2025 (UTC))Reply

Well, since I am quite active today because of other matter: Move to userspace for all the pages by User:Platos Cave (physics) as having an unduly tight relation to commercial/financial profit by the author, via prominent links to codingthecosmos.com, a commercial website. It is quite possibly also pseudo-physics or pseudo-philosophy. The simulation hypothesis is examined in serious academic philosophy, e.g. by Nick Bostrom, I think, but that alone does not establish that the material in these pages is scientific or academically sound. If I paid enough attention to the text, I could perhaps confirm the pseudo-scientific character despite my not being a university-trained physicist (I am a university-trained computer scientist, which includes a lot of logic but not physics). But as long as we have the for-financial-profit-pages charge, we can let the pseudo-science/pseudo-philosophy charge rest a little, I think. See also the notes I made here: User talk:Platos Cave (physics)#Link to an external web site, including "There does in fact seem to be commercial value: the Amazon link indicates the Kindle edition sells for 6.99 USD." The page titles themselves serve to unduly promote (catch Google searches) since they appear rather generic and misleading. For instance, "Simulation hypothesis (Planck)" sounds as if it was an exploration of the simulation hypothesis of the universe by Max Planck, but that is not what it is (similarly for other page titles). Moving to userspace addresses the issue since user space is not indexed by Google, etc.; otherwise, outright deletion would be in order (and moving to user space improves auditability as well as application of something like common law). The affected pages: Simulation hypothesis (Planck), Electron (mathematical), Planck units (geometrical), Physical constant (anomaly), Quantum gravity (Planck), Fine-structure constant (spiral), Relativity (Planck), Black-hole (Planck), Sqrt Planck momentum. As an aside, thank you to Atcovi for bringing this up. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:37, 16 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

So the reason for moving to userspace is now because there is a book on Amazon. And if I remove this book? Platos Cave (physics) (discuss • contribs) 09:25, 16 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think after this unacceptable self-promoting behavior, e.g. trying to create an association from "Simulation hypothesis (Planck)" item/headword to one's for-profit item by means of intermediate links, I think we should just move it to user space and not worry about whether some of the issues were addressed. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:28, 18 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Dan Polansky: I would believe that if there is self-promotion going on with these pages (which is evident), then it should be deleted. Solicitation is not allowed on Wikiversity, even in userspace. See Wikiversity:SD for a definition: "Solicitation for products, services, companies, events, people or other things with no educational merit or which generate direct financial benefit to the contributor." Moving pages to userspace should only be done to content that is not fit for the mainspace, but doesn't go above non-educational content (copyvios, self-promotion, discriminatory content, etc.). This clearly does, IMO. What do you think? —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 14:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

That is a point worth considering: overt (for-profit) self-promo ==> del. As an initial thought, I will point out that user space is not Google-indexed, so not deleting and userifying instead destroys the promotional motive/incentive while providing excellent auditability for anyone who comes along and wants to request an undeletion. Whether the auditability is worth it in this case I would need to figure out. I would need to figure out the adverse consequences of userfying self-promo like that. A copyvio, for instance, seems to be a much stronger case for deletion than for-profit self-promo. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Move to user space. Original theory by single author. Citations are circular/self-referential. Lacks consensus or peer-review. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 08:54, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hilbert Book Model Project

Latest comment: 19 days ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Sub-pages

Pseudoscience/fringe work that isn't scientifically supported nor supported by Wikiversity's original research guidelines. All research regarding this model goes back to the author, who has tried to promote this on Amazon via his own book. All the "scientific publications" are only from the author and are on self-publicated websites. Lastly, "The content of this project is not peer reviewed. The reader is responsible for checking the validity of what he/she reads. The peer review process cannot cope with the dynamics of revisions and extensions. Reviewers are always biased, and they are never omniscient. The peer review process is expensive and often poses barriers to renewal of science." is alarming and goes against Wikiversity's principles of learning. I propose moving this entire project into the original user's userspace. @HansVanLeunen: notifying the user of this discussion via this ping, but the author has been inactive on the Wikimedia Projects since 2019. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 16:05, 16 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am inclined to support moving to user space, but I want to have a calmer look later. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Atcovi What's the point of labeling it with a template, saying that it's a POV and that someone contradicts the ideas presented in the research? I've seen such templates somewhere. The problem with the entire argument for deletion here is the unapproved original research policy. However, if you believe that Wikiversity is being abused to promote some hypothesis of the author, then I would be in favor of deleting it. What struck me was that it's translated into several languages and that the translations are on en. It could be an attempt to debate multilingually, but also an attempt to promote it in various languages. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 21:13, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Move to user page as per Atcovi's request. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 09:21, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thick Description and Implicature & other similar pages

Latest comment: 19 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Low quality, confusing rambles that have no verifiability nor educational substance behind them. I asked @KYPark: personally on his page regarding these pages he's been creating, and has not offered a justification for the pages in accordance to Wikiversity's guidelines on learning. Essentially the pages seem to rely on fallacies, erroneous causal claims, and the testimony of an AI bot to justify its existence. The user does not agree with moving them into their userspace and insists they are "highly educational", so I'm seeking the community's opinion on the matter.

Other pages suffering from similar problems include:

I invite everyone's thoughts on the matter. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 00:46, 17 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

If we accept my proposal at Wikiversity:Colloquium#General ban on direct use of GenAI output with exceptions, some of these pages would be quasi-deleted (=moved to user space) on being largely GenAI-generated alone, regardless of whether the use of GenAI is properly attributed. To properly assess them as for meaningfulness, I would need to carefully handle them one by one; GenAI does often produces valid results, and identifying the parts that are wrong requires more than a cursory look by a non-expert.

They also violate another principle: any page that is original research needs to be tagged with {{Original research}}; they are not.

I propose to block user:KYPark from creating new pages until we figure out what to do with them. Assuming KayYayPark is the same person as KYPark (KayYayPark confirmed this, but KYPark did not), I was dealing with problems created by this person before and I gave up since I did not have the blocking tools (I made a request at WV:Request custodian action). --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:34, 17 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

After reviewing the request at WV:Request custodian action and seeing that the user is using two accounts to create low-quality, AI-slop, I've gone ahead and blocked the main account, KYPark, for 2 weeks from creating new pages. The disruption stemming from this user has been going on for a while, and this block is needed to figure out what we should do with the remaining pages. As per my conversation with this user on their talk page and evident by their talk page(s), they have been pretty combatant and unwilling to come to an agreement regarding their nonsensical "thesis" (which, once again, has no arguments to back it up except for causation and guesswork). A harsher block will take place if the user switches to their alternative account to continue their disruption.

If you are willing to give your analysis on each page, Dan, I'd be grateful. Thanks! —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 15:21, 17 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I quote the utterly disingenuous take: 'It's beginning to get very exhausting trying to rid of the disruptive material and other garbage that has been growing on the English Wikiversity, and dealing with a user who still fails to see the problems with their contributions is taking the time away from developing resources. I originally believed Dan could be a positive asset to the community as a regular editor, but its obvious that this pattern of disruption is not going to change. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 01:11, 20 November 2025 (UTC)', from Wikiversity:Community Review/Dan Polansky. I wonder whether any comment is needed or whether what is going on is self-explanatory. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Doesn't belong in main space:

Thick Description and Implicature - Delete. Dump of genAI conversation.
Why and Why Not Basic English - Delete. Dump of genAI conversation.
The Meaning of Words - Move to user space. Personal essay.
Lambda World - Move to user space. Personal notes. No obvious learning objective.
AI English - Delete. Dump of genAI conversation.
Vital Vocabulary - Move to user space. Personal notes. No obvious learning objective.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Minoan Civilization

Latest comment: 19 days ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Resource that has not been developed since April 2023. The author, SecretlyHistoric, has not been active on the Wikimedia Projects since then. I'm proposing that the page should be moved to the "Draft" namespace. I wasn't sure if I could just be bold and do it myself, but I guess it doesn't hurt to make sure the community is in line with my reasoning. Thoughts? —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 00:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Move to user space (or Draft, as a 2nd best option); the subpages for weeks are basically empty, e.g. Minoan Civilization/Protopalatial Period. One could perhaps argue that the list of 4 books saves the page, but I find it unconvincing. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't really understand why to move pages to user own userspace. Wikiversity should be a source of educational pages for everyone. Moving pages to the user namespace can lead to everyone starting to natively place pages there, which we don't want and it's not Wikiversity's goal to provide users with a private web space (in the userspace, almost no one usually interferes without being asked). If there is a belief that someone will take care of it, it's worth moving it to draft, if that belief is not there, then delete it. I think that page creators should be notified about RFCs of their pages on their discussion page so that they can be informed that something is happening with their pages and maybe they can show up and say something about it, but that's for another discussion. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 21:01, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

You can start a discussion on changing the long-term English Wikiversity tradition of moving pages to user space instead of deleting them in Colloquium. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:17, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Move to draft namespace. Consists of a course homepage and empty weekly sub-pages. No development of learning resources or recent activity. However, it has a structure that could be built on. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:40, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Fairy Rings

Latest comment: 19 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The page and subpages do not show anything useful; this has been so since 2007, I think (maybe I do not concentrate). Author: User:Juandev. Move to user space (or delete if preferred by the author and co-authors?). --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

For instance, Fairy Rings/Database/Lublaňská 25 was created in 2014 by User:Juandev (usurped); there are lat-lon coordinates and an empty section for observations.

In Fairy Rings/Database, I entered auto subpage generation. It found:

--Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 15:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

The project has an introduction to the issue and clearly stated instructions. I don't see the lack of participation in the project yet as a problem. Wikiversity is not Wikipedia, we are not aiming for pages full of text here, however, if someone is bothered by it, it can be deleted. For me, it would be enough to edit and update the project a little. --Juandev (discuss • contribs) 19:40, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Keep. Clear objective that is in scope. Delete the test database pages. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:01, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Spanish/Spanish One/SO-Lesson 1

Latest comment: 19 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I would delete just this page as it is not completed, the tutor is not active, and it probably doesn't bring any good. The linked on-wv resources can be used elsewhere by other en.wv courses. --Juandev (discuss • contribs) 20:17, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete per nominator who is also the original creator. More complete Spanish lessons are available on en.wv. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:12, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Category:Spanish:An Introduction

Latest comment: 19 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I started the course Spanish: An Introduction a while ago and never completed it. I will not be able to resume it any time soon; it hasn't been resumed by someone else for a very long time, and we do have two complete Spanish courses (Spanish 1 and Spanish 2). So I don't see the point in keeping this torso. The course includes the following pages:

With related discussion pages. --Juandev (discuss • contribs) 20:38, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete per nominator who is also the original creator. There is some potentially useful material that could be integrated into existing lessons, but more complete Spanish lessons are available on en.wv, so it would be tidier/easier if this incomplete course was removed. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:16, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Category:Pomology

Latest comment: 18 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I propose deleting this category, which contains only the course I also propose deleting. The course was never completed; it has been unfinished for a long time, and no one else appears willing to complete it. I will not have time in the near future to work on it. List of affected pages:

--Juandev (discuss • contribs) 22:09, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

In a case like this, deletions are better done on a per subpages structure basis than on a per category basis. And Dave recommended using {{proposed deletion}} when opposition is not expected, and RFD as a last resort. But I do not mind a RFD.

1) Move to user space or delete the page Pomology and its subpages: too underdeveloped, too little to learn from here.

2) As for Banana production, move to user space or delete: too little to learn from here. Created by User:Juandev in 2006.

3) As for Pineapple production, move to user space or delete as per request of the page creator, User:Juandev (created in 2006). --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:11, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, but what kind of proposal is this to move a page created by multiple users to a single user's namespace. How do you choose which one? If it were me, how can I reverse this action? Last time, when I tried to reverse it, you reverted me. Can I then propose the page to be deleted from my userspaec again? Will you then propose moving it again, perhaps to another userspace or something? In my opinion, this procedure is very bad and does not have wider support. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 20:58, 23 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete category and project pages per nominator who is also the original creator. Incomplete course with no activity for a long time. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Pi-Conjugated Materials

Latest comment: 10 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Undeveloped resource that has not been improved on since creation. Original author, User:Jgutierrez, has not been active on the project since 2009. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 03:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete per nom -- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:32, 1 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Information system modelling

Latest comment: 9 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Not much sustenance.

Information system modelling/Lesson 1:Activity diagrams barely has anything useful above the introduction sentence.
Information system modelling/Introductory lesson seems to be a stub.

The course has not been developed further since 2008, and the author, Grovermj, has been inactive on the project since 2008. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 01:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC) —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 01:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete per nom -- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Graham School of Science and Mathematics

Latest comment: 8 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Seems to read more like a Wikipedia page than a Wikiversity page. I don't see any parts of this page that encourages active learning. The author, Wnateg, created the page in 2014 and has not returned to the project since then. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 15:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete per nom -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:49, 3 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Portal:Danish

Latest comment: 8 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Extremely underdeveloped. No improvements made since 2013. The author, Cuchifrito1216, created the page in 2013 and has been inactive on the project since then. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 16:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete per nom -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Category:LAMAI Theological Academy and all related content

Latest comment: 2 hours ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See User_talk:Dave_Braunschweig#Theological_Academy for context. Based on a Google search, LAMAI appears to stand for the "League of Arhats of the International Academy of Truth". Google AI indicates this "is not a widely recognized organization, and there is no publicly available, verifiable information about its existence or activities through general search, legal records, or news reports." The only associated link is a telegram shortcut with a single member. Based on this background information, I agree with User:AKA MBG that it is very likely any user account associated with LAMAI is a single user and all of the related content was created in violation of a block from 2022.

While I am inclined to delete the content outright and block the associated user accounts, I am no longer active and want to defer to the community for confirmation.

Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 20:57, 11 December 2025 (UTC)Reply