Welcome to the education noticeboard | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22 |
Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III. |
INFO3504-LGBTQWikiEditing at CUBoulder
Concerns have been raised about inappropriate categorization & disruptive editing from participants in this WikiEd course at ANI and SPI:
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent_addition_of_bad_categories_by_Sarahlundell_and_refusal_to_communicate
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ivance1027
I think some guidance is needed here. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sure most of us are familiar with the disruptive editor who bulldozes across Wikipedia making the same edits to many articles despite them being reverted, they just carry on and refuse to communicate. Sadly this well intentioned idea came across like that, resulting in ANI and SPI reports. I haven't looked into the history of this page much to see if something has been suggested, but surely if accounts participating in things like this had a banner at the top of their talk page saying they are participating in a project and to contact [insert editor in charge's name] regarding any problems it would certainly result in a more welcoming response from the community? FDW777 (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Accounts involved in a class typically do have a banner mentioning that they're in a specific class (probably automatically added by something?), but I think in this case it was an editathon--I don't know what that would entail if it were related to Wikipedia Edu stuff specifically as the only editathon I've been regularly privy to the existence of is probably more likely to be taken on by people more "into" Wikipedia than most students in classes I see? - Purplewowies (talk) 06:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- Just confirming this is an edit-a-thon and not a Wiki Education course. Participants in one of our courses do have banners on their user pages, and a welcome notice from a Wiki Education staff person on their user talk page. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Accounts involved in a class typically do have a banner mentioning that they're in a specific class (probably automatically added by something?), but I think in this case it was an editathon--I don't know what that would entail if it were related to Wikipedia Edu stuff specifically as the only editathon I've been regularly privy to the existence of is probably more likely to be taken on by people more "into" Wikipedia than most students in classes I see? - Purplewowies (talk) 06:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
New Growth Features - Mentorship
Hello all, please see Wikipedia_talk:Growth_Team_features#Student_editors_being_assigned_mentors. — xaosflux Talk 12:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Undisclosed art-class (fashion/textile) project
Affected articles such as:
- Environmental impact of fashion ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Synthetic fiber ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Sweatshop ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Polyester ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Fashion week ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Acrylic fiber ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Cotton ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Superheroes: Fashion and Fantasy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Zandra Rhodes ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- New York Fashion Week ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Fashion design ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Diet Prada ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Yarn ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Met Gala ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Vogue (magazine) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
students are mostly adding opinions/synthesized ideas and other editorial content. What few facts they include are typically redundant and/or uncited. I finally found this comment, confirming that it's a school project, and left a note for that editor to ask their instructor to at least look at our resources. DMacks (talk) 07:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Ping User:Roxy the dog, who has apparently also come across some of their mess. DMacks (talk) 07:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed yes, that was my impression, a class of some sort, but I couldn’t get to the bottom of it. It has been going on for a couple of months, and a page got protected imho to little avail, as they are sporadic in their editing. I’m in hospital atm, will respond more later on when I get home. Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 08:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- If you're able to find any information about it, we're happy to reach out to the instructor with more guidance. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've been thinking about this all day, and I dont think there is much to be done unless one of them responds beyond deleting a template warning with a snarky dismissive message, but lets see if it develops. All the affected articles I saw were on my watchlist, but the course is looking at the fashion/clothing industry historically and ethically. That's a rather pompous assessment from a bit of casual reading though !! I would add to the list of articles if anybody wants me to. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 19:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have taken the liberty of editing the opening post by adding a slightly more indented list of a few more affected articles. There are more. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 20:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Lead article -> 3 accounts -> each hits 2 other articles also -> more accounts uncovered -> more articles affected lather/rinse/repeat. I've resorted to level3, treating it as a widespread pool of accounts all working together who refuse to interact and no evidence of improvement. So if we wind up with MEAT-blocks, that will either solve it or induce someone to come to the table to discuss, great. Not sure it's worth a CU to see if there's a central IP to stem it right away, or wait to see if autoblocks help. No objection to keeping a single list to which we all contribute. DMacks (talk) 05:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have taken the liberty of editing the opening post by adding a slightly more indented list of a few more affected articles. There are more. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 20:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've been thinking about this all day, and I dont think there is much to be done unless one of them responds beyond deleting a template warning with a snarky dismissive message, but lets see if it develops. All the affected articles I saw were on my watchlist, but the course is looking at the fashion/clothing industry historically and ethically. That's a rather pompous assessment from a bit of casual reading though !! I would add to the list of articles if anybody wants me to. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 19:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- If you're able to find any information about it, we're happy to reach out to the instructor with more guidance. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed yes, that was my impression, a class of some sort, but I couldn’t get to the bottom of it. It has been going on for a couple of months, and a page got protected imho to little avail, as they are sporadic in their editing. I’m in hospital atm, will respond more later on when I get home. Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 08:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- After seeming to subside, they are now back at work, creating drafts:
- Draft:Yau Chung Tong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) speedied as copyvio
- Joanne Julian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Joanne Julian already existed, and the editors are making a mess of it
- a ton of clones and other work-in-progress: [1]
- Draft:Paul Botello (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Cristinagal 0/sandbox/Madeleine Vionnet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Madeleine Vionnet already existed
- User:Cmora1996/sandbox/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Tatiana Shabelnik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) deleted via PROD
- User:Mandyliangg/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) speedied as copyvio
- Draft:Bryan Ida (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Draft:Kim Abeles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- several other work-in-progress (many clones of each other, or possibly some undisclosed original): [2]
- Blocks:
- User:Monseguerra ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs). 31 hours. DMacks (talk) 07:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- User:Ayjahlanders19 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs). 31 hours. DMacks (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- User:Saraxgarcia20 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs). 31 hours. DMacks (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Mariela.genovez indef (added from below) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Project Submitting Drafts to Update Articles on Species
There seems to be a class that is submitting drafts to Articles for Creation of expanded articles on species, mostly endangered species. The only problem, and it is a minor problem, is that they are submitting drafts of new articles to AFC, but that is not what AFC is for. I am tagging the existing articles for the drafts to be merged in, declining the drafts, and asking the submitters what the class project is. Does anyone know what the class project is?
Some of the articles have been:
- Acanthomintha ilicifolia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Fusconaia escambia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Tartarocreagris texana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Tayshaneta microps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Banara vanderbiltii (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is basically good, because it is adding content to the articles, although AFC submission via draft is not the way that AFC is meant to be used. Who is the instructor? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- It doesn't look like they're connected with Wiki Education in any way. If you find out more details of the instructor and university, please let us know! --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
No sig means assignment templates converted to sections don't get archived
Hello! Are you a student in CMN2160B at U. Ottawa, and you're wondering why you were pinged here? It was a mistake, my apologies! Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Sage (Wiki Ed), The sort-of Rfc on Wiki Ed assignments decided in favor of Option 3: Put the template in a new section, and update it as needed. However, this option did not include the addition of a standard user signature, which is required for bot archival. So, it seems to me, that this whole development has replaced what the majority of users originally saw as an undesirable accumulation of dashboard templates inside the Talk header that rarely got removed (but which were often collapsed), with a scheme where each assignment template gets its own section header as an independent discussion section, but no signature. Upshot: they stuck around forever before the change, they stick around forever after the change (but take up a lot more vertical space than before). Remind me why we did this, again? Or, did I miss a piece of the story? Mathglot (talk) 10:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Mathglot: They can still be manually archived. Maybe the archive bot could be updated to detect the new format as a valid archive-able section even without a signature? I might be able to add a signature from the first user who adds the template, without breaking the ability for the Dashboard to update the template to reflect subsequent changes (like other usernames being added or removed). Cleanly handling the removal of the section including a signature (for when a course is no longer planning to work on that article) would be a bit complicated, though.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- I seriously doubt the archive bot would be updated to do that, as it's not its charter to do so and would open it up to all sorts of special requests, but feel free to check at User talk:Σ. If you can add a signature just from the first user who adds it, that would guarantee eventual archiving, although if the course were 4 months and archiving delay was 3 months, it would be archived before the course ended. Ideally, you should add a signature either: 1) every time the assignment template updated (there doesn't have to be any content, just the sig is enough), or 2) just update the sig line, keeping only the last one. Here's what it would look like for the top assignment section at Talk:Communication if every update was signed (example constructed from actual updates of the top assignment template):
mockup of course assignment section with {{unsig}}-style signatures added
|
---|
Here's what the top section at Talk:Communication would look like, if every update to Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Ottawa/CMN2160B_(Winter) were signed in the style of Template:Unsigned:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayeesha.t (talk • contribs) 20:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minhhang1406 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yingzhuo Yang (talk • contribs) 07:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiang jiteng (talk • contribs) 21:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiang jiteng (talk • contribs) 18:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minhhang1406 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minhhang1406 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilia226 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkbolt21 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Or, another way to do it: just keep the last update, and drop the "unsig" code and use your own:
Note the |
- There would be no real reason to use the "unsig" style wording, you could use a standard sig of the same style as ~~~~ with your own lead-in text, so instead of "Preceding unsigned comment added by..." you could have, "Assignment template updated by...". Further, instead of signing it every time, you could just replace the sig each time (Assignment template last updated by...") which is all that the archiving bot cares about.
- The current situation seems untenable to me. We went through this whole process to get rid of assignment templates from the page, and the current procedure does not do that, but rather, it makes it worse wrt to vertical page height, scrolling, and unwanted visibility of templates that stick around forever.
- Yes, of course, they can be manually archived, but before we started all this, they could have been manually removed from the header (in a much simpler operation than manually archiving a discussion) but people were complaining then that templates stayed on the page forever (even if collapsed) and it wasn't good enough to be able to manually remove them, so we went through the Tfd, and then the "Rfc", and bots were unleashed on existing pages to convert them, and dashboard procedures were changed to match, and after all that, it's not better, it's worse and doesn't respond to the initial motivation that started all this.
- We need to go the last mile, and tag the individual discussions with sigs so the bots can archive them. (Unless someone has a better idea.) Either a sig-every-assignment-update approach, or just a replace-the-last-sig approach works for me. The only thing that doesn't work, imho, is what we have now where converted assignment sections stay on the page forever. Mathglot (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ping "Rfc" participants: @Primefac, Sdkb, SandyGeorgia, ProcrastinatingReader, Markworthen, BilledMammal, and Tryptofish:
- Ping Tfd discussion participants not already pinged: @Gonnym, Trialpears, OwenBlacker, RexxS, Clayoquot, Femke Nijsse, Rhododendrites, Wugapodes, Ozzie10aaaa, and Nikkimaria: @The Mysterious El Willstro, Czar, Brojam, Epipelagic, El cid, el campeador, Aircorn, Sadads, Goszei, Nerd271, and Zoozaz1: @Favre1fan93, Uanfala, Daask, Senator2029, Saotura, and Dpleibovitz: Mathglot (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Fix ping @Femkemilene:. Mathglot (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand the issue. Any text in a talk page should be signed, whether it is by a human user or a bot. If the bot isn't signing then it should be fixed. Gonnym (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- The bot should sign. Strictly speaking, the archive bots only require timestamps to function, but I think the name of whoever made the section should also be there (name of bot, name of editor using tool, whatever). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree - the bot should sign. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 05:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Fine with me, too (bot signing). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Adding signatures
I'll work on this next week. (I'm on vacation to attend my sister's wedding until then.) Thanks for bringing this up, Mathglot.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure imitating the output of ~~~~ or ~~~~~ (including whatever prefixed boilerplate you want) will work. If in doubt, check with User:Σ. Enjoy the wedding! Mathglot (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. Something will need to be done about existing sections too, I think, to make sure they can be archived by bots. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- If we don't really care about the actual timestamp, I can have a bot go through and put a ~~~~~ at the end of the extant template uses. Primefac (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- That'd be fine with me. Maybe a short note to make it clear it's not the actual timestamp (like unsigned. 17:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Primefac: Okay with that, but if it's not too difficult, could we use
|end_date=
from the assignment template for the bot-added timestamp? Assignment templates, like this one at Sichuan cuisine for example, typically have a course end date listed as|end_date=
. If there's no user sig or {{unsigned}} already there, can we use end_date instead of time now? If some talk page has a template for a 2016 course assignment and archiving algo=365d, it would be annoying to have it around for another year after the bot run. Mathglot (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC) - And then there's this assignment template added in March 2015 to Talk:Artificial intelligence with no
|end_date=
. It's still present and not bot-converted to date. Not sure if the bot could easily find that one. It does have|term=Spring 2015
, but I don't know how commonly used that param is (or was); maybe Sage (Wiki Ed) might know. Where used, the param value is often seen as "Season YYYY" as in this example, but I believe it's completely free-form text. Mathglot (talk) 05:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- If we don't really care about the actual timestamp, I can have a bot go through and put a ~~~~~ at the end of the extant template uses. Primefac (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Signature count and style
As usual, there's more than one way to do it, so I invite comments on what the signature text should look like, and whether it should leave a new sig every time (half a dozen or more updates to an assignment are not rare), or just keep one sig showing the last update, whenever it was, and by whom, replacing all earlier ones. Mathglot (talk) 04:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep the last sig only – I vote for keeping the sig representing only the last update to a given assignment template, as shown in the bottom example in the show/hide section under #No sig means assignment templates converted to sections don't get archived, above. No reason to keep all of them, and it will just uselessly expand the page even further. All other edits to the template are in the page history.
- Use this text – As for the text, I vote for the text in that same example; like this:
<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by [[User:Example1|Example1]] ([[User talk:Example1#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Example1|contribs]]) hh:mm, dd Month, YYYY (UTC)</span>
- which resolves to: — Assignment last updated by Example1 (talk • contribs) hh:mm, dd Month, YYYY (UTC)
- If you have an opinion on the signature text or how many signatures should be kept, please share it below. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that it should just be the "last updated by" signature. The other way wastes too much space, and there is still the editing history. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, this is helpful. I'll try to implement it like the above example.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that it should just be the "last updated by" signature. The other way wastes too much space, and there is still the editing history. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Template:Course wizard and Template:Course page
Are these and their subpages still used? I am cleaning up uses of the cmbox
class. While these pages use the class when they should not and should either be using inline styles or no styles at all, from what I can tell they are made for the old system of course integration and so TFD or redirection in some way is a valid way to deal with these as well. Izno (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure they're not, but when Sage (Wiki Ed) gets back from the vacation he mentioned in the prior thread, he can confirm. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- (Most specifically, these 12 pages.) Izno (talk) 09:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Izno: None of those are used anymore, as far as I know. Redirection or some other form of cleanup would be fine.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sage (Wiki Ed) Just to clarify, the 12 of interest, or the whole batch of Special:Prefixindex/Template:Course wizard and Special:Prefixindex/Template:Course page? Izno (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Izno: I had only checked the 12 before, but those whole batches for both templates are not used anymore as well, I believe.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sage (Wiki Ed) Just to clarify, the 12 of interest, or the whole batch of Special:Prefixindex/Template:Course wizard and Special:Prefixindex/Template:Course page? Izno (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Izno: None of those are used anymore, as far as I know. Redirection or some other form of cleanup would be fine.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
User talk:Mariela.genovez
Blocked for spam. Claims to be in a class. How can I get her teacher to liaise with the WikiEd people? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Here's another one. Not blocked yet. User talk:Victuhrino --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Feel free to encourage their instructors to reach out to us: teach.wikiedu.org. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks looks like this a part of WP:ENB#Undisclosed art-class (fashion/textile) project --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Feel free to encourage their instructors to reach out to us: teach.wikiedu.org. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Undisclosed assignment from Kenyon College
Several editors have been making similar edits to Knox County, Ohio and Columbus, Ohio. Several of the editors edit war for each other, and the edits are WP:UNDUE and disruptive. One editor wrote this is a class project, and the IP editors are all from Kenyon College:
- User:Maevehem
- User:Sparkerkc
- User:Samalama123
- User:138.28.170.212
- User:Mia Sherin
- User:138.28.193.69
- User:Purpleblondie
- User:138.28.169.139
Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
I have requested the pages to be protected. --VVikingTalkEdits 21:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- If you find out the instructor's name, we're happy to reach out! --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Researcher with an h-index of 7
According to Web of Science, Pascale Guiton has an h-index of 7. And I see no reason why they meet WP:PROF. The article appears based off of WP:primary sources when that is against the ethos of Wikipedia. Here, independent sources should form the basis of articles. Any thoughts otherwise, User:Ian (Wiki Ed), User:UncommonLeaders, or User:Jordanm12? I see the article is a result of this course. Ian, if the professor, student, or volunteer Wikipedians do not move forward with a deletion process within a week or so, would you please do that? Thank you. Biosthmors (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Biosthmors I don't believe that it would be appropriate for me to nominate an article for deletion using this account. Since this is an alt account, and a PAID one at that, I do not believe that it's appropriate for me to use this account to nominate any article for deletion, participate in a deletion debate (except to provide background information to people participating in the debate) or to advocate for the inclusion of any content in article space. I would certainly encourage anyone creating an article to use strongly sources than are used in this article.
- I also could not do it using my volunteer account, because doing so would amount to me using my volunteer account for the benefit of my employer, something I consider highly inappropriate. If it were an edit I would make anyway as a volunteer, I would consider it. But in a volunteer capacity, I would not nominate an article for deletion without doing an exhaustive WP:BEFORE search. I'm also not a deletionist; I believe that deleting yet another article about a Black woman from Wikipedia would do more harm to the project than leaving this one. And if I were to consider it, I wouldn't base it off an h-index, not for a person who has two first-authored papers that have been cited over 100 times, and four over 50. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 02:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- While I understand your objections, I think it would be appropriate for the Wikipedia Education Program to handle any issues that the program causes in mainspace, and that can include moving to delete articles that are created because of the program but should not have been. BilledMammal (talk) 04:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think it's reasonable to ask others to nominate this or any other article for deletion for you. If you believe that the subject is not notable - a very reasonable belief in this instance - then you should nominate it for deletion. Or don't and move on; the project isn't (usually) massively harmed if it has a few articles that some editors believe should have been deleted.
- You might get some more specific advice about the norms and expectations of scholarship in biology if you ask at projects that are frequented by biologists. WT:PROF isn't a bad place to start. ElKevbo (talk) 03:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- While I'm also doubtful of the subject's notability (and unfortunately less-than-notable academics seem to be a not uncommon product of Wiki-Ed courses), I full support Ian's position here. It's not really their place to evaluate articles in their capacity as a Wiki-Ed person; that's the community's responsibility at large. I don't see why they would get involved in AfDing Wiki-Ed articles unless there was some obvious emergency concern, like blatant COPYVIO. Ian's job is to be an ambassador of the Wikipedia community's standards to people in education courses. As part of that, they can and do advise course participants of what our written inclusion criteria are and when the community has determined that a given article does not meet this criteria, but it would put them in a mighty awkward position to then become involved in the AfD discussions, or make content choices on behalf of the students. If an individual editor thinks a product of a Wiki-Ed course is not notable, than nominate it for deletion yourself. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)