Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikiversity2

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus, kept. -- Jonel | Speak 06:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiversity

Has already been VfDed and deleted here, but was recreated in good faith and I suppose it could have gained notability by now. However, it didn't, so I'm proposing we delete it again. --W(t) 01:14, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

• Keep : Please. This will be used to create lesson for students.
• Keep :D This is a great idea.--AI 01:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • We're not voting on whether it's a great idea, otherwise we'd have kept combined nose hair trimmer and coffeemaker. --W(t) 01:31, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
    • That nose hair trimmer and coffee maker would make an ideal fathers day gift though. JamesBurns 10:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete but certainly support re-creation when & if it gets off the ground. I agree that it's a cool idea. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:48, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Self-reference, plus it isn't notable, plus it isn't really enrolling or doing. Geogre 02:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete until it gets going. Great idea though and where can I find info on the combined nose hair trimmer and coffeemaker? That should get me awake and presentable in the morning. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted content. Whether or not it was recreated in good faith is irrelevant to whether a recreation should be kept (good faith is instead relevant to whether the recreator should be sanctioned). Whether or not it has gained notability since the last VfD is an issue for Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion—it should have been listed there first by anyone who wished to recreate it. Postdlf 07:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, I've reconsidered because the subject matter was only proposed at the time of the original VfD; that it now exists is more than a mere question of notability, and I think this change does make the issue different enough from that which the original voters faced so as to not make that vote binding. But merge and redirect to Wikibooks, because it doesn't seem to have any real independent significance from that topic. Postdlf 16:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Wikibooks. It's mentioned there, but could use some expansion. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:17, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or turn into a redirect page. This takes up very little space and may help someone find their way to the Wikibooks area. A redirect would also be OK but may leave someone who is not experienced in the Wiki Foundation a little confused since you are now in a different area with a different log in. DS1953 17:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: for the reasons already stated. -- Taku 07:44, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It seems like a serious project so why shouldn't it have its own entry. Incomplete yes but if you poke around you'll find some extensive stuff in it.
• Delete - not notable enough yet - if this was any other than a wikimedia site it would be deleted pretty quickly. -- Joolz 13:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• strong keep - we are working on classes for the project (Oceanography) and try to get more faculty associated - it needs an information base within Wikipedia - it will be good for students worldwide, especially the havenots - Professor Dr. habil. Uwe Kils Klönschnack 00:57, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry but I don't think it's appropriate that we should have one standard for websites and another standard for mediawiki websites. It's simply not notable enough to deserve an article, regardless of whether one would help attract faculties or help the 'havenots'. -- Joolz 01:49, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I do not understand that "standard" - to what rule does it refer? there is space enough on the server - good ideas all started small on the web, why delete so much? Nobody is forced to read this or contribute - Uwe Kils Klönschnack 03:06, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• keep - good idea Vikings 01:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Radiant_>|< 18:57, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• keep It is not listed as a project on the front page. How would anyone know about the nascent project if there is no article about its development? There are plenty of nonsense articles to keep Vfd'ers busy without trying to banish things that could actually be useful.. --Blainster 19:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Wikipedia namespace or merge with Wikibooks. To keep as a seperate article would be like having an article about Willy. Alphax ^τεχ 09:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.