Wikinews:Deletion requests/Archives/2008/Q1

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search

This is the archive of Deletion Requests that were closed from January 1, 2008 through March 31, 2008. Unless something was accidentally missed, there ought not be anymore added to this archive.

Contents

March 23, 2008 [edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is Delete. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request.

Image:ProtestorsinSanFransisco1.jpg [edit]

This image currently lacks details of it's source and as it appears to be unfree will require a fair use rationale to avoid it being speedily deleted.

However, even if a source and rationale is provided, I would argue that it is impossible to write a valid rationale which justifies and explains why a freely licensed photograph of this event could not have been created or cannot be found. Hence I propose it be deleted. Adambro - (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

  • Comment. Is there an article that uses this image? --Jcart1534 - (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
No, it might refer to Protests mark anniversary of Guantanamo detention center, though. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Apologises for the confusion, this was used in Protests have occured across the United States to celebrate the fifth anniversay of the Iraq invasion but I removed it because of the likelihood of this being deleted either via this DR or speedily due to no source and rationale but I'd accept this is probably not very helpful. Adambro - (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

  • Remove as nominator. Adambro - (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove, possibly speedily, per nom Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove. The users has not responded to my message asking for a source. --Anonymous101 (talk · contribs) 14:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove. --Jcart1534 - (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Found the source here. The licence is CC-BY-ND which is not permitted here or on Commons and the article this was used in appears to have been deleted so this can probably be speedily deleted now. Adambro - (talk) 06:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The user on Flickr has changed the license to cc-by --Anonymous101 (talk · contribs) 06:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    The article that this was used in has been deleted as abandoned. I'm not sure there is any purpose is us keeping this image now. Adambro - (talk) 07:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    OK, at least move it to commons --Anonymous101 (talk · contribs) 07:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove if uploaded at commons a larger version should be used. The user that uploaded this seems to have deliberatly selected a misleading license and should probably be cautioned to not do so in the future. --SVTCobra 13:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    I seem to recall reading somewhere that the user didn't know what licence to select so just picked one rather than deliberately attempting to mislead. Can't see any real point in moving this to Commons, there must be millions of potentially useful images on Flickr under CC licences and I don't see why it is worth uploading this one if it isn't going to be used. Adambro - (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, the Admin's talk page or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


March 21, 2008 [edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request.

Category:County Clare [edit]

A category containing only one article, found this on recent efforts to tidy up our categorisation. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

Votes [edit]

  • Remove as nom Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove per nom, I can't really see us filling this category with any more articles any time soon. Adambro - (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove --Anonymous101 (talk · contribs) 14:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove. --Jcart1534 - (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep There could be more stories on these counties in Ireland sooner or later, but then again, I'm just a stickler for organization. --TUFKAAP - (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, the Admin's talk page or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is Images restored by Adambro per consensus. I'd now invite all users to work towards ensuring that any issues are addressed and will be doing this myself also. I'll be happy to assist if required, find me lurking in IRC or contact me via my talk page. Any of these unfree images where I feel we are unable to justify their use will be subject to a deletion request. Adambro - (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC). Do not add any more votes or comments on this request.

Images listed at User:Anonymous101/Unfree/2 except those with a reasonable fair use rational [edit]

Before you vote, read this:

  1. This vote does not concern the unfree images that should be restored because a reasonable fair use rationale can be added: this vote concerns unfree images of which the use cannot be justified by fair use arguments.
  2. Some users believe that these images should be restored because they are part of our news archive, and that per the WN:ARCHIVE policy archived articles should be kept in their original state.
  3. These users also believe that the foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy cannot be applied to our archive because it was developed without any concern for Wikinews' highly specific situation. After all, we should only do what is good for Wikinews.
  4. I believe that since there is a Foundation policy, there should be a consensus if we want to ignore it, and that if no consensus can be found, the policy should be followed.
  5. Most importantly, voting is EVIL; try to understand the arguments of other users and be flexible and willing to change your view.
  6. Also, try to keep your cool.

See Wikinews:Water cooler/policy#Non-consensus deletion of images for most recent discussion.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

  • Comment with reference to point 2. WN:ARCHIVE is not about keeping articles exactly how they appeared when they were published, it is about preserving the content of the article. The key principle of it is about ensuring that the article reflects the information known about the subject at the time rather than being updated later as more information becomes available. None of this in anyway impacts on whether we are, according to our own policies, remove unfree images from archived articles. There is nothing to stop us doing this but everything to say we should, the foundation resolution and our own aims of what we're trying to achieve with this project, create free content which anyone can use. Adambro - (talk) 09:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I've created User:Anonymous101/Unfree/2 to list the deleted images as the old page will only list them once they are undeleted. You might want to change the DR title. --Anonymous101 (talk · contribs) 11:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Just for reference, this was done at about the time the resolution was passed: Wikinews:Image use policy/Poll. Voting never closed really either. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

  • Support undeletion as nom per my reasons above. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per my comments on the above-referenced discussion. A process to review and delete images on a case-by-case basis would not have caused this conflict. However, the EDP should potentially be revised to take into account the concerns raised here and in the aforementioned discussion. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    Such a process would only result in an outcome that is in violation of the foundation resolution, despite it stating that it must not be "be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects", just as what is bound to happen with this request. Consensus is great but just as if I asked UK citizens if they wanted to abolish taxes I am sure I'd get consensus, it is never going to happen. We've got to comply with the resolution regardless of what any of us feel about it. It is of course a shame to delete images but when it is considered that these are unfree images, against the fundemental values of ours and all WMF projects, and used in old articles which are probably hardly ever viewed, I'd ask if it is really worth coming into conflict with the foundation over? Adambro - (talk) 09:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I do of course Oppose this undeletion request and, whilst fearing sounding like DragonFire1024, would label this request as simply invalid considering the resolution makes it clear that we can't host images which aren't available under an allowed free licence and cannot be justified as fair use. The resolution also states importantly that it "may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects". On this basis, unless a change to the resolution is allowed which seems unlikely, it is not for us to decide this. I would suggest that any admins should careful consider the possible consequences of restoring images against the board resolution. As much as I feel we should try to maintain our archived articles, is it really worth going against the WMF board in order to keep a few unfree images on articles which are properly hardly every viewed? We should move forward with this resolution, taking care to ensure we don't use unfree images where we don't have to, and live with having to loose a few odd unfree images. Adambro - (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
With the images in question deleted, and no readily referred to list of what was removed, it is very difficult for administrators to make a judgement, and impossible for non-administrators. I note on Anonymous101's page that was used to list these images that one has been restored; ironically enough, I don't think it should be on Wikinews. There is every indication from the referenced source that from the age of the photograph it should have entered the public domain. Thus, the image belongs on Commons. DragonFire1024 may well be able to obtain a copy without the caption if he is prepared to spend sufficient time at the local library going through newspaper archives - which are likely on microfiche. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Brian, see User:Anonymous101/Unfree/2. It lists all the images deleted that were previously on User:Anonymous101/Unfree
The image in question has never been deleted. I didn't delete it per the resolution because I'm aware of the possibility that this might be able to be moved to Commons. I would note that whether a photo is in the public domain is not necessarily just about when it was taken, the date it was first published can also play a part and establishing the date in this case is where the difficulty is I understand. Adambro - (talk) 09:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support --David Shankbone - (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
    Why? Adambro - (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support restoring the images although I oppose the adding of new unfree images (as explained on my user page) Oppose per adambro--Anonymous101 (talk · contribs) 11:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. I agree with a lot of what Steven and Brian have been saying, but the fact of the matter is the Wikimedia Foundation made a decision. A bad decision made without regards to the unique needs of the Wikinews project, but still a decision. It's not our job to choose which rules we follow and which ones we can ignore; we seriously are not that powerful, guys. If someone wants to take this up with the Foundation and ask if they could make a revision, like what Brian said above, that would be sensible. But since these images are currently not supposed to exist, they should remain deleted until such a revision is made. ~Planoneck~ 14:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support as per Florence's comments. There is a fine line between 'illegal' images and images 'against resolution'. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 15:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
    How exactly are Florence's comments really relevant here. I don't see where she says where we shouldn't obey the resolution and I somewhat doubt she ever would so to use her comments to justify doing so seems bizarre. I understand that the comments were made in reference to a completely different issue. Of course we should try to preserve our archives but I don't see that being argued about. However, I would strongly suggest that the archiving policy is not necessarily to ensure that articles continue to look the same, rather the text content is to be maintained. Removing images in no way goes against even the spirit of our archiving policy. Adambro - (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Well the images are not illegal. They simply either need a FUR or to be deleted if they cannot. The resolution says FUR...not delete on spot. And yes I think her comments are very relevent. either way, my vote stands. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 15:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I've never said they are illegal and I'm well aware that if valid fair use rationale was provided then there would be the possibility to keep more of them but saying that, if people actually read out fair use policy they'll realise it is, intentionally, very limited and if I really wanted to I'm sure I could find hundreds of "fair use" images which actually don't comply with our EDP. It would be all well and good for me to say yes, I'm going to delete these images, either people sort out a fair use rationale or they're gone but actually, these have been tagged with a warning that they'll have to go for over a year and no effort has been made. Adambro - (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Assuming there are no legal issues with the images, archives should be left as intact as possible. These images should not have been deleted until the community had finished discussing this. If the community decides that we should delete images in archived stories, then we can redelete them, but unless that happens, they should be undeleted. --Cspurrier - (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support A couple of FURs would have saved us the trouble and would have not broken the archive. Yes, we are a wiki and we are a project, but remember, we're different from WIKIPEDIA, Wikipedia articles always open for editing, ours on the other hand are not, once the time is up, they cannot be changed and by doing this you have made changes, very bad changes. Personally, I don't mind free use. I like fair use alot, and many of the images I've uploaded to WP are fair use, of course, I've lost the sources over the years, so most of them have been removed. But point is, fair use is NOT EVIL, fair use is fundamental right built into American copyright law and I'm glad it exists. So bring the images back and let's fix this up. --TUFKAAP - (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    No, I'm afraid that fair use is evil, considering we brand ourselves as "Wikinews, the free news source you can write!" We shouldn't be so relaxed about fair use images but I'd accept there are certain limited circumstances were their use can be appropriate and justified. Regardless of whether copyright law allows fair use, it doesn't mean we should make use of the right all the time. Using so many unfree images is wholly incompatible with ours and other WMF projects core objectives, this is what the resolution is recognising and attempting to address. Yes we are different from Wikipedia, yes we are different from Wikimedia Commons, yes we are different from many other WMF projects. None of these are reasons why we should neglect the key aims of creating free content. Adambro - (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
To state "fair use is evil" is a steaming pile of fetid dingo's kidneys. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Depsite, my earlier love fest for fair use, I still believe in free content, just when I think of fair use, the only time I've applied is when it comes to logos, covers of media formats and historical significant but not yet public domain photos. But anyways, I also hate this was just randomly deleted. You have broken the archive, now if we don't undelete them and and we keep them deleted (which IMO won't happen, seeing the overwhelming support for a undeletion), we now have to sift through 3 1/4 years of fair use pictures and delete every single broken link we find. If we were going to follow the retroactive portion of the policy, it would have been prudent to have at least noted where said articles are located on the server so we can correct them, as much I hate too. That's why I'm opposed to the retroactive application. Free content = Symbol keep vote.svg but Retroactive application of deletion for non-free fair use content = Symbol delete vote.svg. The Foundation didn't take into consideration that while Wikinews is a WM project, it's style, policies and needs are much more different than the other projects. --TUFKAAP - (talk) 03:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no issue with broken links. When I deleted them originally I removed them from the relevant articles but having considered this a bit more I went back and reverted myself, my thinking being that it makes is easier to restore any as appropriate and find where they were used. I'm not sure there is any consensus as to what we should do when we delete images from archived articles but either way, it would be fairly straightforward for me to deal with any such issues.
I have offered to undelete these images but was asked by Brianmc to let this process run its course. I am happy to see them restored if users will make an effort to resolve some of the issues but will put any I still aren't happy with up for deletion. Users seem quick to demand they are restored but were very slow to actually address the issues which would have prevented them from being deleted in the first place. The resolution has been known about for ages and the images have been tagged as at risk of deletion, it should hardly come as a shock that if nothing was done they'd actually be deleted. Where valid fair use rationales in accordance with our EDP can be added then these should be retained, otherwise they should be deleted once and for all. Adambro - (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support --Skenmy(t•c•w) 20:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, the Admin's talk page or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


March 20, 2008 [edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is Delete. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request.

Potential grave clues found at former Manson compound [edit]

Still a stub, was started on Monday and tagged single source. Recently added sources are all older, as the axiom goes - facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news.

Votes [edit]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, the Admin's talk page or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


March 14, 2008 [edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is Adambro deleted the all saying we have no choice but to delete them (which I think is true). If you have any issues with Adambro's decision please contact him directly or raise the issue at the water cooler. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Anonymous101

All the images listed at User:Anonymous101/Unfree except those with a reasonable fair use rational [edit]

Foundation policy states that all these images must be deleted by March 28 23, but I doubt anyone will delete them without consensus. --Anonymous101 (talk · contribs) 06:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment From reading the foundation resolution, I would suggest this is actually a year overdue. The March 23, 2008 date applies to projects which didn't have an EDP (fair use policy) as of March 23, 2007. Accordingly, we should have addressed this a year ago since we've had an EDP since before then. Adambro - (talk) 06:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose deletion. We have a news archive that shouldn't be destroyed without a serious discussion before. All the foundation did was take Wikipedia into account. They didn't involve us in any decision making, hence we owe them nothing. I'd say you can't retroactively delete published photos on Wikinews, however all efforts should be made to have rationales on the images we publish now. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, the Admin's talk page or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


March 8, 2008 [edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is Removed as per consensus. Thunderhead - (talk - email - contributions) 09:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC). Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. What can I say? --Brian McNeil / talk 20:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews interviews Uga Man, write-in candidate for US President [edit]

Comments [edit]

Patent nonsense. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

  • Remove per nom. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Speedily --Skenmy(t•c•w) 20:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral: I agree, but it was deleted with no sides having any chance whatsoever. Zanium is a good editor and makes good faith edits. I am sure that he would not publish something that is nonsense. There are several options this areticle has, which were never even considered on its talk page. Being, what many seem to think a joke, we could do this on April 1st. Also, this is not engraved in stone. The title can be changed, questions can be changed, and certain rules and or guidelines can be set, as Zanium said, have a real name. Uga's intentions maybe absurd, but IMHO his answers to questions seem serious enough, based on WP edits I have seen. Regardless, this could be developed further and styled nicer etc etc...but my point is, we never gave Zanium the chance...we just took our wand and disappeared the article. Personally a DR should have been done to begin with...This is a good faith editor, and we should allow his comments. If the DR passes, so be it. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Note that I'm personally not a fan of April 1st joke articles. Not every culture acknowledges April Fool's day, and the pages on the Internet can easily be taken out of context. -- Zanimum - (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove See here and here where the user says himself it is a joke. —FellowWiki Newsie 20:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove - My thoughts on this are already clear, our speedy deletion policies allows for the deletion of hoax or joke articles which could be seen to discredit us as a reliable news source, this falls within that criteria. Adambro - (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Zanimum is an accredited reporter and an administrator, and he worked hard on this interview. I filled out the form and I think it will be interesting for our readers.--Uga Man - (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it will bring the site into disrepute if we publish this nonsense. By your own admission you're not even eligible to hold the office. All the candidates we have interviewed are, have registered with the FEC, and will appear on ballot papers. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I did not work hard on this interview, Uga Man. I posted the basic outline, nothing more. You know that full well, and so your reasoning is bunk. -- Zanimum - (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove or Move to userspace. Not a serious news story. --Anonymous101 (Talk) 07:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove No! Now stop it. TheCustomOfLife - (talk) 08:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I like it as an April 1st idea, as DragonFire suggested. Let's use it as that. We don't have anything else, and everything reported would technicaly be accurate, so no silly made up stuf... Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 11:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted this article, as Uga Man did not follow through on the key requirement, his real name. If he had provided his real name, I was fully willing to publish the article, with his pseudonym repeated throughout. He did not provide, I am not willing. -- Zanimum - (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Remove I agreed to the concept only if Uga Man would provide his real name. He did not. He did not even provide his place of residence. I was willing to have Uga Man listed as his name in the article title, if he provided his real name. Again, he did not. Note that local only articles can really do no harm to Wikinews. They essentially are invisible. -- Zanimum - (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Note Local only would only keep the article off the main page. It would still be visible in categories and infoboxes. I object strongly to this. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I also object to any suggestion that there is an option of publishing this under local only. Consensus here suggests this shouldn't be published and if it was published local only to stop it appearing on the main page then then question would be why are we publishing it at all if we were to attempt to hide it. Adambro - (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Whilst I note this article has been deleted again as per my vote, I'm not particuarly happy that this deletion request hasn't been allowed to run its course. We're now in a position where Zanimum says that "if Uga Man provides his real name and city of residence, then the article will be restored and published". However, since neither of those points seem to be the concern that needs to be addressed, I would suggest that even if such information is provided, the consensus that has emerged here to delete it still stands. Of those that have voted, only one person has said we should keep this. I think it is fair to disregard the vote to keep from the subject of the interview. Adambro - (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I did provide my real name, I am Will Harrison of Kirby, Texas.--Uga Man - (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
William Harrison is a historical figure. Hysterical might be more appropriate in your case. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove - Carrying this interview, even as an April Fools Joke, could only serve to discredit Wikinews --SVTCobra 00:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, the Admin's talk page or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


February 28, 2008 [edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is Delete. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by SVTCobra

Category:Gardening [edit]

Encyclopedic cat, only used in one article. —FellowWiki Newsie 21:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

Votes [edit]

Please vote using {{keep}}, {{remove}}, {{neutral}}, or {{comment}} followed by signature

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, the Admin's talk page or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


February 24, 2008 [edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is Delete. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by SVTCobra

Image:BeaKatbW.jpg [edit]

This, by the looks of things, is a photograph of a user. However, since it is unused and the user hasn't been active since mid 2007 I don't see a use for it so propose it is deleted. Adambro - (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

Votes [edit]

Please vote using {{keep}}, {{remove}}, {{neutral}}, or {{comment}} followed by signature Remove there is not even any evidence that it is of the user. --SVTCobra 01:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Move to commons maybe. --Remi - (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't fit under Commons mandate. -- Zanimum - (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, the Admin's talk page or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


February 23, 2008 [edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is Deleted the two pages highlighted as having "spam" content, kept others. Adambro - (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC). Do not add any more votes or comments on this request.

Crosswords/2005/February/1/Text and Crosswords/Across Lite [edit]

This pair of published and archived articles seem to be encouraging readers to download software and save files to their computer from a company called Literate Software Systems. How this was ever I good idea, I do not know. Further searching led me to Crosswords and Crosswords/2005 which are more like categories and should be considered for deletion as well, along with everything they link to. --SVTCobra 03:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

  • We used to have daily crosswords contributed by a dedicated user. They should be kept. However the spam can be deleted. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

Please vote using {{keep}}, {{remove}}, {{neutral}}, or {{comment}} followed by signature

  • Remove It's pure spam, and needs to go. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 11:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove ONLY if spam cannot be removed. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove. It looks like you need the software to make the crossword functional. I don't see how the spam could be removed, so...remove. --Jcart1534 - (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove per own nom --SVTCobra 13:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, the Admin's talk page or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


January 20 [edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is In the process of deleting this, users have been notified, template will be substituted by my bot prior to deletion. Adambro - (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC). Do not add any more votes or comments on this request.

Template:SS [edit]

Any signature system based upon templates is a poor idea. With this setup any registered user can change the signature of anyone who uses this technique. My key concern with this however would be that it unnecessarily loads the server with having to call this template on every page it is used and anytime the template is changed every page it is used on will have to be regenerated by the server.

This template is attempted to be justified on the basis that people use long signatures, the simple solution to this is to just use a shorter signature! Looking through the current examples which use this template, we have links to irc, email via mailto and emails via the Emailuser page. I'd ask these users to really consider whether any of this really justifies the burden it places on the server, if people want to email you or whatever then they can do so via your userpage.

For all the 9 times out of 10 when someone doesn't care what your email address or whatever is they're not going to miss not having it in your signature. Please be a bit more sensible about signatures, they don't need to be pointlessly decorative, use your userpage for that.

If this template is deleted then of course all the uses will need to be substituted with a bot which I'd be prepared to do under my bot flagged account. Adambro 17:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

  • Is {{Ss}} also covered by this DR? I ask this, because currently {{SS}} advises people to go to {{Ss}}. --SVTCobra 01:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    It should be clear hopefully that this deletion request relates to the whole system of template signatures rather than any particular template which is an element of that system. Adambro - (talk) 12:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

  • Oppose no reason to delete it, doesn't cause that bad of a server load. Thunderhead - (talk - email - contributions) 21:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per all of those reasons. --+Deprifry+ 00:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove per the page linked by Deprifry. —Zachary talk 01:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove and set a character limit on signature code. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral A sigs a sig, although i don't really like the templates, who cares. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove per nom. --SVTCobra 02:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove --Brian McNeil / talk 10:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral --Anonymous101 (talk · contribs) 06:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove signatures can be customized already without employing this system. remove. --SVTCobra 00:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, the Admin's talk page or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


February 16 [edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is Deleted as abandoned by Adambro. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by SVTCobra

Anonymous members release new video for new protest. [edit]

I appreciate that this hasn't been published yet but feel it appropriate to nip it in the bud before it is developed any further. As per Jimbo's recent comments, Scientology is clearly a very controversial issue and we've got to be careful when we're dealing with it and try to present a balanced view. I don't think that a new video announcing further protests is particularly newsworthy and we should avoid writing about every little incident that happens in the world of Anonymous/Scientology. The conflict between the two and the protests as a whole has been newsworthy but events like this probably aren't. Adambro - (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Neutral: Anyone can write anything they want as long as it follows policy. Although this is not formatted properly its still news. Jimbo simply made a request and if someone wants an article whether or not is is pro Scientology doesn't matter. We cannot tell people to stop writing about a subject because someone thinks we have too much of it. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
    I've not suggested that we shouldn't write articles about Scientology because of what Jimbo has said, rather that we must be cautious with such articles because of the controversial nature of the topic. As far as I recall, that was Jimbo's point. We don't let anyone write about anything. It is up to the community to decide what is acceptable and newsworthy. This DR is asking the community to consider whether this article meets these criteria. I think it is entirely appropriate to consider where we draw the line with Scientology articles in order to ensure that we are not considered to be biasing either side. I think your encounter with the church at the recent protests demonstrates that this is something that we might not quite be achieving. Adambro - (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I would agree except the Church has been granted more than a dozen times to reply or give a statement as which they have not. If they think WE, as a news organization of OPEN editing and writing, are being biased, release a statement, inform us or they can write an article on here like everyone else does. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Just because the church does not appear to be willing to address the balance does not mean we can or should accept a flurry of articles of questionable newsworthiness which are anti-Scientology. This isn't just about what the CoS think, this is about what readers think. If we have loads of anti-Scientology articles of questionable newsworthiness then both parties will begin to think, rightly or wrongly, that we as an organisation are anti-Scientology. We've got to be careful to avoid this and this is what I understand was Jimbo's point. Because of the particularly controversial nature of the topic, we've got to be quite firm about what we allow and what we don't. Adambro - (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The fervor with which many editors have been covering the Church of Scientology and Anonymous has been unbelievable. I don't know what the proper term is, but it has been disproportionate. It was not long ago that a category with less than a dozen articles was considered for deletion as a "crusade" against a particular religous school. Though it did not pass, the number of Scientology articles far exceeds this past "crusade". And while all of them extol the values of WN:NPOV, and go to lengths to pass the normal tests for POV, not one of them is in any way positive about CoS. It has become too much, IMO. As far as this paricular article, I think it is not from a reliable source and would not have been published in that form (I hope). Further, it would likely have been deleted as abandoned already. PS where did Jimbo make his comments? I have not seen them. Are they on-wiki? --SVTCobra 03:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, the Admin's talk page or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


February 14 [edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is Keep. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by SVTCobra

Template:Breaking news image [edit]

This template is intended to be used in instances where an image is to be used on Wikinews but the copyright status is unclear and the information is supposed to be added as soon as possible. However, looking at Category:Breaking news images, it is clear this isn't working. Images get uploaded as a "breaking news image" and simply forgotten about. I suggest we simply don't upload images unless their copyright status can be clarified. Doing so reduces the stability of articles as images have to be replaced and deleted as appropriate and increases workload in trying to resolve issues months later.

Whilst I suggest we just delete this and stick to images where we can be more confident of their status, an alternative solution could be to rule that images can only be classed as "breaking news images" for a limited time period and then speedy deleted if this is exceeded. Adambro - (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

Please vote using {{keep}}, {{remove}}, {{neutral}}, or {{comment}} followed by signature

  • Comment I agree that this template has been used frivolously and that future use should be discouraged. However, I don't think just deleting the template will solve the problem. We need to systematically go through Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Breaking news image and delete the unused ones and add {{Non-free use rationale}} to the ones that are justified. --SVTCobra 02:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Speedily - Deletion will screw things up. Let's fix the problems first, remove all usage, then put it back up for deletion. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 11:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    If consensus is to delete then I would propose substituting all uses prior to deletion so the current images tagged with this can be dealt with and the category retained until this is completed. Adambro - (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I am under the impression that any image in that category for over a week can be speedied. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Because it allows us to look for a replacement to one that may not be free. Remember we allow fair use. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
    We don't need this template to find free alternatives. Images with unknown licensing or permission simply shouldn't be uploaded in the first place. Adambro - (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - It has been abused some but it is still a good idea to have. The idea of this template is to handle cases where there are very high odds that it will be licensed under a free license soon, or is under a mostly free license that will probably be relicensed. This is to be used when for example the photo is on Flicker under a cc-by-nd and the uploader thinks it very likely that it will be re licensed on request. There should not be any photos in this category for very long though since we should have an answer fairly soon on the image’s status --Cspurrier - (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    Patience, simply wait until we can be confident an image is free. The contents of the category demonstrates that if is isn't sorted at upload time it probably won't be. Adambro - (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, the Admin's talk page or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


February 12 [edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is Delete. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by SVTCobra

Rockerball to invite third team into competition [edit]

The Rockerball history page[1] states "In all there have been a total of fourteen people play rockerball in its history. There were 9 players in the playing in 2002 with the other five players playing in 2006." It appears to be a couple of kids who have invented a game. If we accept an article like this, we'd need to accept articles about games of backyard cricket. This event is not newsworthy. --Borofkin 04:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC).

Votes [edit]

Please vote using {{keep}}, {{remove}}, {{neutral}}, or {{comment}} followed by signature

Keep - i think it's (albeit uniquely) newsworthy. Brian Best 05:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Remove - per nom. further it is impossible to get around the COI the author has. --SVTCobra 14:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Remove - We're not here to report on what kids play in the afternoons. TheCustomOfLife 14:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Comment WN:COI says "Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias." --Bmissb - (talk) 07:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

True, but it means, imho, that you can still contribute if you have a COI, such as closeness, but it is unworkable when the sole source/contributor has this closeness issue. --SVTCobra 03:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
that's not what it means. it's saying that if you are capable of a neutral point of view, and not "inclined towards any bias," then there is not an issue, and you can contribute, period. I'm sure I could find plenty of important extremely newsworthy articles that were written by people who were involved.
Indeed, ALL news is written, indirectly, by people who are involved. otherwise, there would be nothing, but that might be "too deep."
Take the holocaust, for instance. Most of the news and information came from people who were involved, even though they were "close to the subject." Many news articles and books have been WRITTEN by those people, as well - they are not considered "unworkable when the sole source/contributer has this 'closeness' issue." Closeness is not the issue, bias is.
If you don't let people write news articles they were involved in, then the next step might be that you won't let them tell other people about what happened because they "have this closeness issue." Then you just won't have any news. They are simply different levels of action of the same motivation. Isn't this all true? Brian Best - (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The issue here is not conflict of interest, it is newsworthiness. I have no problem with people involved in news events writing stories, my objection to this article is that it that there is no evidence that this Rockerball League is anything more than a couple of friends and a website. - Borofkin - (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Remove and put back up if and when other media covers it. This is just to cover the "what kids play in the afternoons" comment by TheCustomOfLife. Bmissb - (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, the Admin's talk page or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


February 7 [edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is no consensus. Keep.. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request.

22 year old college student "beat up" by employee at SAFEWAY in Carson City, NV [edit]

This was recently undeleted as it doesn't really fall under WN:SD policy (or at very least is on the edge), but there is quite possibly reason to delete as it was deleted before, so i converted it to a dr. It was written by the victim, and as such probably can't be written neutrally due to systemic bias. (plus how to verify....) anyway, vote away. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

  • please don't delete this yet - I will produce a statement by the victim, as well as a police report as soon as it is released. It can be verified by SAFEWAY's legal department which can be reached via the phone number -customer service - on their website - i don't have time to go into details right now - please don't delete this until I can discuss this with you. tthanks. Brian Best 03:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
As it stands, this will not be deleted for at least a week. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Can we convert this into an interview with a man who alledges he was attacked at Safeway? That would be neutral, as it would have a third party involved and the fact reported would be that this man says these things. How's that sound? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 11:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Although that sounds a lot better than deletion, it seems to me as though the direct connection gives the article a quality that an "interview" could not match. But like I say, I would rather have that than deletion of the article. Brian Best 22:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I take it back. Sure. But I don't think it should be "interview" format. I think you should just write a new article based on the information available to you. I am here to interview, though.  :) Brian Best - (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • COI states, "Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral." I don't know if this is true or not, but of course, I will produce the affidavits of witnesses being used against the victim by the D.A. in the purpose of allegations, and then other editors, will be, of course, free to add to / edit the article to include things in the affidavits / police report. The affidavits are currently available to the victim's public defendor, but the public defendor has not called (me) back yet. The affidavits will be produced soon. Brian Best 22:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Brian Best, please clarify, are you in fact the alleged victim? If not, what is your relationship with the alleged victim? --SVTCobra 14:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
To clarify, haha, it's not an "alleged" victim, lol. His blood literally ghad to get mopped up off the floor (and wiped off the store employee's fist). Also, your question is totally irrelevant, according to the policies - it WAS written from a neutral point of view, right? AT LEAST as far as anyone can verify, if not completely and undebatedly. There is also nothing in the policies that states anything applying to the article that was written (that I saw). Even if the author was the victim and did write the article in the third person, I think it would only be fair to first post a new rule stub that says "authors can't write about things that they are involved with" or whatever, then we could debate whether or not there should be a rule or not about that, and then, if a new rule is implented, the question you're asking would have relevance.
As of right now, there was no reason for the article to have been deleted in the first place, and personally I honestly don't understand why it's being subjected to deletion now. An admin simply deleted it, and that, from my humble understanding, would have normally been considered an act of vandalism. BTW, MY public attorney has not called me back yet, so the affidavits are not yet available to produce, even though the law states they were supposed to be given to me NO LATER than january 15th 2008. I'm going to have to call the courts tommarrow and explain that I need them for a News Document I wrote, plus my upcoming court case.
I've made several statements on different user talk pages, but let me say this again: COI states that I can declare my intent, and my declared purpose is to make (what I see as) newsworthy events available for people to read in a version that matches truth as closely as I can possibly make it. And if wikinews' intentions deviate from that in the slightest bit, then I will re-assess my intentions. Brian Best - (talk) 03:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, it is still "alleged" victim until the Safeway employee is convicted in court. And yes, you are ignoring policies according to WN:COI. You have not, and still refuse to, declare your interest. You say you did, but you did not do so. Perhaps you do not understand what is meant by "declaring your interest" but at this point it no longer matters. The newsworthiness of this, inasfar as impacting people across the world, is minimal. I vote Delete. --SVTCobra 04:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I made it bold incase you missed it the first time. You just accused me of "ignoring a policy" because I "refused to do something" which I did in the post you are responding to. LOL.Brian Best - (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The declaring your interest portion of WN:COI is not to say that you want to write news as close to the truth as possible. Presumably, that is what all of us want to do. Rather it is to declare what your interest in the case is. Suspicions arise from the fact that you are in contact with the defense attorney who is sending you documents. This is not normal. Therefore you should declare what your relationship is to the case and specifically the alleged victim. You have also not said that there is no relationship. If there was no COI, the first thing a "normal" reporter would have said is "I don't know any of these people" but you sidestepped the issue, leading me to believe that you do know one or more of the involved parties. Your failure is in not fully disclosing what your own involvement is. --SVTCobra 02:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean to "sidestep the issue-" I simply asked why does it matter what my relationship is in the first place? NO ONE MADE AN EFFORT TO ANSWER THAT, EITHER, and that is another issue that has been "sidestepped." I had read the policies and saw that it says that if the article is written from a NPOV then it does not matter how close the author is to the subject. To answer your question, even though, nobody has given me the same respect and answered MY relevant questions, I am the alleged victim, and now that i understand what "interest" is, I guess my personal interest is for correct justice to happen to happen to me, if that is even my choice. I really don't have much interest in it, if you can believe that. I just think it's a newsworthy thing that - yeah - happened to me. I never DENIED that i was the victim. I just realized that people here might have a deep prejudice AGAINST THE ARTICLE if they saw it was written by the victim. Even though THE POLICY SAYS it shouldn't matter.
That's what it should really come down to, is what the policy says, and the policy DOES SAY, that, as long as the article is written from a NPOV, then it doesn't matter "how close the author is to the subject". All your COI arguments are ridiculous. Brian Best - (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Why is this subject to deletion in the first place?

There is no COI (no one said that my declared interest deviates from Wikinews' and it's been there for about 3+ days). It is verifiable through both Safeway and the Carson City Police. The first deletion would have normally been considered to have been an act of vandalism (that statement has also been up for about 3-4 days with no conflicting statements), but only wasn't because it was an administrator who deleted it - with false justification and didn't even post a speedy deletion tag, but it doesn't break any policy, nor does it even fit the requirements for a REGULAR deletion. Brian Best - (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

Please use {{keep}}, {{remove}}, {{neutral}}, or {{comment}}

Keep unless becomes abandoned. Don't publish as is. Get the police report if possible, Nyarlathotep 13:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Remove --SVTCobra 04:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Comment One of you can write an original article using the article in question as "the victim's statement." The sources listed on the article should be more than enough to allow you to do the research to verify any information. If SAFEWAY or the Carson City PD refuse to talk to you, then I think the article should be published as is, or you can edit it how you want. I don't care. It's your article too. And the author (me) provided plenty of sources - phone numbers, etc. to allow for verification. Brian Best - (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

NOT CONVINCED? YOU ARE WELCOME TO ADD TO THE ARTICLE! DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH? I provided plenty of things to help you out, on that? But you'd rather just delete it? WHY??? This is a collaborative site. You can EASILY verify what happened. Just call the safeway legal department! they have a VIDEO TAPE!!! call the carson city police? It's not difficult, but i guess it might be a LITTLE bit more difficult than voting for deletion. Brian Best - (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't you yell at me. I didn't address you that way so don't even step like that to me. Thank you in advance. TheCustomOfLife - (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Like Custom I remain unconvinced that Brian Best is not the victim in question, or a close associate thereof. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
this is lame. i've been trying to cooperate with everyone. no one has answered me by saying: what does it have to do with the issue? why does it matter? i've been accused of "refusing to do things" when i guess i just misunderstood them. yeah, i'm the victim. but like i've said before, what does that have to do with it? nobody has answered me. the only "issue" is whether the article was written from a NPOV. COI states that closeness to a subject does not imply that an author is "incapable of being neutral." Why are you voting to remove it? That's lame. Bullshit. The problem is easy to fix. What is my interest in the case? I don't want to get convicted of battery and shoplifting. What does that have to do with a news article? Nothing. Is there a conflict of interest? Obviously not.
NOW PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTION: WHY IS THIS SUBJECT TO DELETION? It ONLY matters if the article was't written neutrally, and isn't verifiable, if the author is close to the subject. Since it was written neutrally and you are VERY VERY ABLE to verify it, COI STATES IT DOESN"T APPLY.Brian Best - (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Yelling at people isn't going to help your case. We are nt the only website in the world, perhaps your article would be btter suited to another site. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, you, and CVT Cobra, and others, have repeatedly ignored my arguments to COI. You have ignored my questions, so I thought I'd try to point it out so that you actually *see* it. Now you're suggesting that I leave the site. Because I've been yelling at people, but i wasn't yelling "at" anyone. I'm just trying to get my points across, and since they've been ignored repeatedly, I thought I'd try to be a little more CLEAR by using capital letters to place EMPHASIS on my arguments (which come directly from THE SITES (your) policies, so i think it's kind of unfair that you're ignoring the policies of this website just because - well i don't really know why. That was why I was using caps, I wasn't trying to yell at anyone, I'm sorry you took it that way. I don't want it to be seen that way, and I want to get along with everyone, but when you completely ignore my statements, which are right from the policies, and my questions, which relate directly to the policies, I think that it is an appropriate time to try to clarify. Brian Best - (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, the Admin's talk page or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


February 1 [edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is remove. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request.

Book Review: Swallow Wahweap: Drink Bitter Water [edit]

This book review/report or whatever the contributor decides to call it is not news and as such falls outside the scope of the project. Book reviews, by their very nature, cannot be written from a neutral point of view so should not be published on Wikinews. If the opinions are removed we'll get to just a description of the book which, if it is notable, is more appropriate as a Wikipedia article providing adequate sources can be provided for all statements. I'd note that this is especially not newsworthy as the book is eight years old!

The discussion here is probably worth reading. Adambro 18:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

What I find most distressing is that I presented an idea and requested a policy change. I provided an example demonstrating potentially how the idea could be implemented within the framework of Wikinews policies. Rather than have an open discussion, I see that at least two users have resorted to what I would characterize as combative behavior. Everyone here knows full well that if this was moved to Wikipedia that it would be rejected because it constitutes original reporting. I would like to emphasize that. It constitutes reporting. This is because no other source that I have found has reported the content of this book other than the books advertisers. I do not know the author of the book and I am not an employee of either Amazon or Xlibris. I have not presented my opinion about the book. I have not suggested that anyone should read the book. I simply reported the content of the book. Further I was courteous about submitting this content. I did not automatically publish. I invited others to contribute and coauthor the article. I requested, sincerely, the suggestions of other editors and administrators regarding policy and regarding the article. Charlessauer 19:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd actually suggest that it is you that has caused any hostility towards you. A number of users raised the issue of neutrality and you soon started making such daft comments as suggesting that "we should ban the Water cooler portion of this site", implying that your comments are fact whereas anyone else's are opinions, and claiming any opposition to including the book review is "censorship". Book reviews/reports/descriptions or whatever are not within the scope of the project and I doubt the community would ever support such material, Wikinews is about news. News is about current events. Adambro 20:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to clarify because you do not seem to understand what I am stating. I am stating that administrators and users in the Wikinews policy section are determining policy based on their personal opinion, based on what they believe is in the best interest of Wikinews. I pointed out the irony. The irony is that these opinions are not neutral. For instance it is your opinion that a “... report ... or whatever [is] not within the scope of the project [Wikinews].” You may think that I am just trying to stir up trouble, but truely, I believe I am also acting in the best interest of Wikinews. There is no need to suggest that I am daft. Charlessauer 21:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I have most certainly not suggested you are daft. However, forget not that we at Wikinews are a much smaller community with a different set of rules than 'pedia or other projects. Opinions are permissible anywhere apart from inside the mainspace articles. If we all remained NPOV on deciding policy then we would get absolutely nowhere. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 21:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, someone sort out a concise explanation of how any review - book, entertainment, or other - can adhere to WN:NPOV. At the moment I remain unconvinced that this is possible. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
If I see this and agree with it I will gladly support the inclusion of such things on Wikinews. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 09:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The book review provided in the example is not a spoiler. Unfortunately you would have to read at least one chapter to believe me. I point this out only to illustrate that for the article (1) I highlighted elements of theme – that it is a metafiction – setting, a brief about plot, characterization, and stylistics. In keeping with the discussion and to expand the article (or any article) so that it is more than a book report, the article should include (2) context within current events. (3) Any book “analysis” as a current event should remain neutral. It should not endorse the book or the opposite. To that extent an editor should be on alert for ambiguous modifiers and any special emphasis on the denotation of any modifiers within the article. (4) We could give book reviews a trial run with an explicit set of goals, outlined objectives, and expiration date for the trial. (5) At the end of the trial period we can collect opinions and put the idea to a vote. Charlessauer 13:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Please let me know if I should move this discussion elsewhere. Also, please recommend a place. Charlessauer 13:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

Please use {{keep}}, {{remove}}, {{neutral}}, or {{comment}}

  • Remove --Skenmy(t•c•w) 21:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • {{oppose}} deletion. I want to see book reviews on this site. I also want to see people stop trying to define what is "news" on here. My personal vision of Wikinews is as a fully-functioning alternative to Newsweek.com. Although we are far from that point, anything that inches us in this direction, in my opinion, is good. But we need to do this in a measured, methodical manner. Although I have outlined my problem with this article on the collaboration page, I do not have a problem with the article in theory. I simply would like Charles to be more trusted. So, I oppose deleting this book review, although I do not know if I think it should be published yet. --David Shankbone 01:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I also understand Skenmy's removal. There is a middle ground here: We can have book reviews, but how do we know a person is intellectually equipped to review the book? What I think we should do here is come up with guidelines for book reviews that Charles needs to meet. For instance, an established Wiki-edit history on the topics the book deals with (for instance, if a Dragon was to review the w:Swimming Pool Library it should be established that he understands gay themes). What I wish Wikinewsies would do more with this site is instead of opposing every new idea or new concept on here, try to find ways to accommodate it through our policies and guidelines as any news site (Time.com, Newsweek.com, et. al.) does. So, even though this particular book review may not meet that criteria, perhaps future ones do. It is up to Charles to prove his mettle to review a book on a certain topic, literary or non-fiction, etc. --David Shankbone 02:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I urge you to read WN:NOT. I quote: "Wikinews is an online news source". "Wikinews articles are not editorials. Articles should restrict themselves to reporting news and not commenting on the news or newsmakers.". "Wikinews is not an encyclopedia; that is, it is not an in-depth collection of non-newsworthy information. Just because something is a true fact doesn't mean it is suitable for inclusion here.". Three things that are stated on our so far unchallenged page regarding what Wikinews is not that oppose the inclusion of a "book report", which by it's very virtue is POVed, non-notable, and not suitable for inclusion on a news website. Note the WP definition of news: "News is any new information or information on current events which is presented by print, broadcast, Internet, or word of mouth to a third party or mass audience.". --Skenmy(t•c•w) 09:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I think we should have another look at what's on WN:NOT and if we could remove some things. I believe this all needs to be revisited. I don't like hearing not, I like hearing can. TheCustomOfLife 15:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • {{oppose}} per David Shankbone. People who whine about things like this not being "real news" clearly have not been watching Today or the evening news, where entertainment news is "real news" now more than ever. And I say, if you want real news, write more real news. TheCustomOfLife 02:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Entertainment news? This isn't entertainment news, this is a book report. News would be when the book was released and i'd have no problem with a review being included in that article ([[Blah Blah Released]] contains details on the release and then an NPOV review. That is good context and information in an article). News is a current event, not a spoiler on something that was released 8 years ago, and that has no reason to be in the attention of our readership base. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 09:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm tending towards support of Skenmy's argument here. If the book is 8 years old it isn't current. If it had been released in January then there might well be a case to keep as you could build around the news of its release. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Right, I wasn't aware of when the book was published. That isn't news, no. I'm crossing out my vote but not my comments, because I do believe it would be a good item to have if it were a new release. TheCustomOfLife 10:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree re: it being an older book. I think it needs to be recently published. --David Shankbone 20:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I would have to disagree. Although with other books I would agree. Shakespeare has been extensively reviewed and probably does not fit a modern context that could be conceived of as news even within the context of a book review. I would contend that the criteria for book reviews on Wikinews would be that no other known book reviews have been published elsewhere. For this book and the topics covered in the book, particularly an exploration of health care (within a fictional context), the ideas have remained current. Health care and prescription drugs are part of the current presidential debates within the U.S.A. That said the more detail provided, to that extent, the more the article verges on spoiling the plot and theme. [Note that the "metafiction" classification, though, does not spoil the book]. Charlessauer 13:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Please do keep in mind, though, that I am not opposed to anyone deleting this article. I would be delighted if the article was published, but I provided this article mainly to serve as an illustration for the topic covered in the Water cooler. Charlessauer 13:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove (or unpublish if we want to keep as a disucssion point??) as it is about an eight year old book - so a bit late for news. as for whether its allowable, thats a different discussion...--MarkTalk to me 12:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove but discuss further. Book reviews are a normal part of news papers, yes. But wikinews is a wikimedia project, which therefore has slightly stricter rules. In particular Wikipedia has a very strict no OR policy, which lets it keep crackpots out. Here crackpots are kept out by only writing about the news, i.e. stuff happening right now. So I'd say you can only post a book review if the book just came out. But this book came out in 2000. *However* one can argue that the standard of "newsworthiness" is very different for books, i.e.
I may not go write a review about The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins since it's been around too long, but you may write a book review about a book from say 5 years ago since this book is still "news" in the slower moving book world.
I feel this is your best argument, but the question is how far back is too far back? If you can produce any evidence about reasonable age limits on book reviews at other news papers, then I'd say we should copy their age limits. What about the NYT? Maybe they review stuff up to one year old? Nyarlathotep 13:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC) ps, An alternative approach is just use another site. Both metafilter.com & kuro5hin.org have fairly high level audiences. Also Wikireason or another debate like wiki might also be appropriate.
  • Comment Unpublish, move to a subpage of creator's userspace or into project space (e.g. Wikinews:Book review proposal/Example. It was created to demonstrate the concept of a possible book reivew, so let it stay in a non-article space role to allow further discussion. Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 02:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, the Admin's talk page or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


January 30 [edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is invalid DR. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request.

711Chan Admins Stop Hosting "Project Chanology" [edit]

Was recreated and then had the original redirected. Even if that was the case, which isn't, its old news and does not get changed. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This does not warrant a DR. Just change it back. It was essentially a rename. Figure out what the appropriate title is and make it that. --SVTCobra 01:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
See above...its old news. Thee is already an article following this one. Its on the thrid lead (at time of this post). DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't care less if it's old news, I'm not trying to change the article I am trying to change the name. There are plenty of suggestions on the original for the title to be changed, most from the same stance I am taking. Fallen-Griever 02:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Just figure out what the title should be. If the result is a few double redirects, they can be speedied. This discussion does not belong here. --SVTCobra 02:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I was surprised to see that this "rename" was not fixed. I have now redirected the "new" title back to the old one. Further, since so much time elapsed a second collaboration page developed; I have affixed that content to the collaboration page of the original title. Lastly, and perhaps not so important, there may have been something on the commentary page for the "new" title, but I may have lost it. --SVTCobra 01:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, the Admin's talk page or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


January 21 [edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is Delete...(Deleted by author. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by DragonFire1024)

Second website in 24 hours attacked [edit]

See article talk, one of the Wikia techs said not a DDoS in IRC.

  • Delete as nom. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per talk page --MarkTalk to me 16:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete not news --Skenmy(t•c•w•i) 16:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete based on an event which did not in reality happen. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Although my source, a Wikia developer said that an attack likely caused the problems. But since the attack was not what took it down I agree on deletion. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, the Admin's talk page or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


January 14 [edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is Keep. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by DragonFire1024

BDSM as business: An interview with the owners of a dungeon [edit]

This is not news, nor was it ever news (fails content guide, fits deletion guidelines.) - Amgine | sw 06:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

(I get to comment first before this blows up Smile.png) Want to be a bit more specific? Are you by extension saying that all 197 interviews should be deleted. how does it fail these guidelines. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure: "Article is not newsworthy", specifically under WN:CG: "News stories focus on a single current event or phenomenon.", as well as "News is relevant" and (even especially) "Don't post press releases or personal writings." To go further, as described in WN:NOT, Wikinews articles are not editorials. Wikinews is not a webspace provider, you may not host your own website or blog at Wikinews.
A further measure of the article is whether it fits Wikinews:What Wikinews is. And, imo, it does not fit even most of those core concepts. - Amgine | sw 06:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I still don't see how this would be outside of those policies any more then any other interview. The only difference I see is the topic matter is a bit controversial. Bawolff ☺☻ 07:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I have no problem with the topic matter. But neither the intro nor the interview addresses the news character of the subject. For example, how is the business run legally? Are there special tax codes? What are the license requirements for an adult entertainment business in NYC? Instead, the focus is on... well, non-traditional news questions. I wouldn't expect an interview of McDonalds store managers about their store in Wikinews either, unless it covered the phenomenon of running the business, or a news event happened there. - Amgine | sw 07:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

Please use {{keep}}, {{remove}}, {{neutral}}, or {{comment}}

  • Keep - wow, this is going to be controversial! I'd say that this is relevant, as we live in an age where such things as BDSM are gaining more acceptance. (God, I hate that over-used phrase, but it's accurate here, for a change) Because these things creep and cannot be measured we cannot therefore publish a normal news story eith the effect of covering this, but we can go out there and ask people in the business just what's going on over there. The only difference between this and any other interview is that we're not discussing things with a specific celebrity, but with an exemplarary sample of who's behind such operations - we thus give a typical image of what it's like at the moment within the business. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 07:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not news interviews such as this one, combined with some WMF policy dynamics at about the time that this interview was published, got me into enough hot water (er, blocked that is) that I've thought to myself that I'll never post onto a internal Wikinews operations page again. Heh... I lied to myself, evidently.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edbrown05 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 14 January 2008
  • Comment agree that this is more magazine feature than news. i think it's far better to raise concerns about where we draw the line between the two by proposing a change in policy( or a change in wording policy to make it clear) than by proposing deletion of a long published article. deleting published articles is something i'm very reluctant to do - copyright violation is pretty much the only reason i would support deletion of a published article. –Doldrums(talk) 10:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I would rather see some discussion or formulation of guidelines on interviews than deletion of a long-published article. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep although I accept that the current policies question whether this should be included. However, looking at some of the interviews we have had I think they are very good and I don't think we should rule them out. Saying that though, we need to come up with some proper ideas as to where we draw the line with interviews and in that respect I welcome this issue being raised. Adambro 14:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Adambro and Brian. What makes this news is that there is a couple in New York City who run a business where people are tortured. They are not "out" about their jobs to their children. They talk about the difficulties running such a business and what they face. It may not be "breaking" news but it is news as much as anything else we write. But I am in agreement that standards need to be drawn up; however, I think this completely falls within whatever standards are merited. It also was one of our more popular pieces, and I think for a site with trailing readership we have bigger fish to fry than removing long standing content that was, and is, popular. --David Shankbone 15:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    Pardon me, but what you're talking about is a "feature", not news at all. There are news character elements to this story, but they are not covered by your interview. I would say the concept and the column are quite good, in fact. They just aren't what Wikinews is about. - Amgine | sw 17:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    Whilst I oppose the deletion, I agree with Amgine's point that this isn't news. News is about current events and I'm afraid I can't see an element of this in the story. Adambro
    • I disagree. I think what Wikinews is about are people exploring their local cities and cultures, and finding the stories that stand out as interesting in those places, and perhaps may not receive coverage in the mainstream media. Not everything we write on here needs to be of a political nature. "News" is many things, but simply, it is reporting on things that stand out or are notable. There are quite a few stories that come out of our Taiwan writer, or our NZ writer, where one might question whether it is "news" - There are plenty of issues that are discussed in this oft-overlooked world of BDSM as business. It's educational, and informative. It's news. You just don't care for it. Which is fine. --David Shankbone 19:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Per David and others. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This is the new direction for Wikinews, exposé kind of journalism, and I'm all for it. TheCustomOfLife 22:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
If it wasn't taken already, I think "Explore your world" is a good slogan for us. --David Shankbone 22:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
You know TCOL, I think you're very right. - Amgine | sw 23:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I simply think there is room for a variety of types of news stories. --David Shankbone 23:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Not right in the way you think, though. I don't see these stories as a nuisance or a hindrance, which you do. TheCustomOfLife 01:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep it is far too late to unpublish and with our license it could be all over the internets. However, this DR calls further attention to the fact that we need to formulate new policy that will allow our news coverage to be broader—more human perhaps—without violating the core values of NPOV. --SVTCobra 02:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: this might be more human interest but you'll find tons of stuff like this in newspapers. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, the Admin's talk page or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


January 07 [edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request.

Template:Fact [edit]

This is not needed for a news site. —FellowWiki Newsie 21:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

  • Remove - I agree --SVTCobra 14:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove as this isn't really compatible with how with reference sources. Adambro 13:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, the Admin's talk page or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is Speedied by TUFKAAP. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by SVTCobra

Obama_vs_Clinton? [edit]

This is a totally pointless article. It reads like something in a gossip rag. Furthermore, it has no references. --142.157.198.10 05:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, the Admin's talk page or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


January 05 [edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request.

Image:Scribe.jpg [edit]

User claimed the image was CC-BY-2.5 but I checked the flickr page and it was licensed under a noncommercial license. —FellowWiki Newsie 22:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

Remove Unused (except on userpage). We are not commons, and this is not free. Therefor delete. (p.s. I changed to appropriate license template). Bawolff ☺☻ 00:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Remove if it is unused we should not be hosting this image. --SVTCobra 14:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, the Admin's talk page or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


December 28 [edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is Delete —Zachary talk 18:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC). Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

inapropriatly tagged abandoned articles [edit]

These articles have been nominated for deletion as they are abandoned, however they are not main namespace articles, so WN:PROD doesn't apply to them. We should decide what to do with them. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The last 2 , were of my creation orginally, so in effect the equivilant of db-self might be

applicable... ShakespeareFan00 13:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well the concencuss below seems to keep media related stuff. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

Remove - these story preps are for events that have come and gone. They can no longer be made into stories that can be published. --SVTCobra 14:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Remove (for the same reason as User:SVTCobra) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anonymous101 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, the Admin's talk page or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is Keep. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by SVTCobra

Wikinews:Video 2.0 and related [edit]

Outside of project scope and following IRC disscusion condsidered unworkable at present. ShakespeareFan00 22:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - This page seems to have started in a flurry of excitement in April/May and then being abandoned. If this is a reflection of the video project as a whole then it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Whether to keep, tag as historical, or delete, which I'd consider are the options here, I am as yet undecided but I'd like to see links to all the pages which the nominator considers are within the scope of this deletion request. Adambro 22:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Inital group of pages concerned:

And associated talk pages... ShakespeareFan00 22:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

  • Keep I agree its unworkable, i disagree that its outside scope, but regardless, I belive that it should be either left unchanged, or marked {{historical}} even if it was out of scope, as it played a major part in our projects history, and there is no reason to delete. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Things like this take time. Its not going to happen overnight. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This will take a long time to sort out. Believe me, should it ever happen, then when it does the length of time it has been inactive for will seem like nothing in comparison. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep —FellowWiki Newsie 20:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Thunderhead - (talk - email - contributions) 22:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Multimedia will become more prominent in the project within the next few years, I think. --TUFKAAP 19:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep it is one of my least favorite sub-projects, but it shouldn't be deleted. --SVTCobra 14:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, the Admin's talk page or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


December 24 [edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is Delete. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by SVTCobra

Category:Peru meteor blamed for mass illness [edit]

Only two articles - not enough to warrant a category, IMO. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

Remove —FellowWiki Newsie 19:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC) Remove --SVTCobra 20:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC) Remove We can't have people finding the news on the Dalek landing site. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC) Remove Far too narrow scope. Also per Brian; cover-up ftw! EVula // talk // 15:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC) Remove as narrow scope although not of course prejudicing the recreation if more articles merit it. Adambro 22:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC) Remove DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC) Remove Link the articles to each other if you wish --Chiacomo (talk) 08:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC) Remove --User:Anonymous101 Talk 09:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, the Admin's talk page or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.

January 18 [edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is keep. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request.

WN:CABAL [edit]

While the humor in creating this shortcut to ArbCom may have been irresistible, it is just not appropriate. It should be deleted and also removed from the list at Wikinews:Shortcuts. --SVTCobra 00:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

Please use {{keep}}, {{remove}}, {{neutral}}, or {{comment}}

  • Remove per own nomination. --SVTCobra 00:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove per nom. Adambro 01:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep(weak) I find it kind of funny. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep not really causing any harm and it is fun :). --Cspurrier 22:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This is just for fun, again I don't see a problem with it. —FellowWiki Newsie 16:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It made me laugh, and isn't hurting anything. Hence, why not? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Thunderhead - (talk - email - contributions) 21:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Also deletion would be counterproductive, making us truly look like a "cabal". DL+1613 00:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment for those who want to keep it for its "fun" factor, shouldn't point to the IRC and not ArbCom, then? --SVTCobra 13:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep fun, no harm being caused. --Skenmy(t•c•w•i) 16:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, the Admin's talk page or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is keep. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request.

WN:CAN [edit]

The purpose of [[WN:]] shortcuts is not to link things like portals or other stuff in the Mainspace. It should also be removed from the list at Wikinews:Shortcuts. --SVTCobra 00:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

Please use {{keep}}, {{remove}}, {{neutral}}, or {{comment}}

  • Remove per own nomination. --SVTCobra 00:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove per nom. Adambro 01:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Rename as proposed below. Adambro 18:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep There is also WN:NZ and possibly others too. I don't see anything wrong with these. —FellowWiki Newsie 20:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral don't really care one way or another. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • shortcuts are here to be helpful. This one is so Keep.--Cspurrier 22:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Rename How about moving portals into a P: shortcut series as Wikipedia does? e.g. rename to P:CAN? DL+1613 16:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
    That's a sensible proposal which I support, using P makes it more obvious what it is. Adambro 16:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Rename That makes a lot of sense. P is the correct prefix to use here. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Rename as above. --Skenmy(t•c•w•i) 16:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Rename per DL+1613. Greeves (talk • contribs) 22:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, the Admin's talk page or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


January 05 [edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is No consensus - keep - by default. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by SVTCobra

Image:Republic of Lakota Map.jpg [edit]

Feeling another Image:Iranmap,1.gif coming on here. This image currently doesn't have a valid fair use rationale because it fails to explain why a free version could be created. Like the Iran map, we can't use a copyrighted map simply because no-one has or is prepared to spend the time creating a free image. Part of the opposition of the deletion of the Iran map was based upon the assertion that creating a free map without using copyrighted sources is impossible however this is clearly incorrect. For a start we have projects like OpenStreetMap which are working to do exactly that. Therefore, unless a fair use rationale which addresses the issue of creating a free alternative is provided, this image should be deleted. Adambro 09:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

  • Keep Comment: Go for it. I am not gonna recreate a map when I already have one, with a proper fair use rational. Until someone makes one, then the fair use rational is reasonable. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 09:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    If you want a map to illustrate this then make one, if you can't be bothered then that doesn't mean you can use fair use as some kind of excuse. It is not valid to say that until a free alternative is created that the rationale is valid. The rationale is invalid simply because a free alternative could be created. On the basis of your argument we can use photos of buildings say, on Wikipedia, under fair use because no-one has uploaded such an image to Commons yet. Not how it works. Adambro 09:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Point is, we allow fair use images. Currently there is no free alternative. That is what the Fair use rational is for. I did what I was supposed to do according to policy. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 10:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
According to policy, fair use can only be used in limited circumstances. I don't see anything which says if you can't be bothered finding or creating a free map you can use fair use as an excuse to use a non-free image. Adambro 11:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove. I have made a free alternative --User:Anonymous101 Talk 19:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I speedy deleted it because a free alternative is now availible, and because as the free image has the same filename on commons the nonfree one was overiding it because it was uploaded locally, preventing the new one from displaying. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This is NOT an alternative. This is a pathetic replacement. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I restored the image. The "alternative" is misleading because there are no real boundaries even for the states so who knows what the new or old land covers. The other tribes are not properly represented and we cannot leave them out. If someone is going to make an alternative, then please, do it properly. Until then this image is properly uploaded according to policy.
That sounds like a good enough reason not to use the other image, but it is still against policy and US copyright law (which we're stuck with as we're hosted on US servers). Let's remove the image entirely, it is not within fair use to have the other one. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
No. This is listed perfectly in according to WMF policy and US Fair USe. It is a PUBLICITY image and publicity images are fair use. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you show me where on the site it says this is a publicity image specificaly for the press? Currently I see nothing to suggest that, but if you can show me, that's getting beyond what I'm comfortable with commenting on. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The WHOLE site the image is in is all to gain public awareness and support for theircause. Everything they have on their site is based on being used for publicity in the press. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It is, however, a free image showing the same thing. I'm no lawyer, but I know my way round the basics of copyright law, and US Fair Use laws do not allow us to use that other image. Sorry, but that's how it is. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken. One the image was released to the press. It is a Press image. So yes Fair use is allowed. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to get into the copyright issues, but the replacement map on Commons is not something I want to see on a Wikinews article. It loses a great deal of detail about what states overlap the disputed territory and I don't have enough black ink to print the damn thing. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't say that anywhere on the image description. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify: Fair Use is a legal defense for the commercial use, or infringing use, of a copyright image for which one does not have permission - implicit or explicit. Press use of the the copyright image is clearly implied in the release of the image. A poor quality image, though free, is not a substitute for one which is allowed on en.Wikinews.
On the other hand - the group claims to be resorting to an earlier treaty-defined border. Although I'm not certain, I'm fairly sure the US Library of Congress will have a map of this border which would be non-copyrightable. - Amgine | sw 21:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Whether this has been released as a publicity image is questionable, for that to be the case I'd usually expect to find the image in a media library section of their website. The publicity element of our fair use white list allows images which have been specifically released for use by the media, any old image on a website cannot generally satisfy this criteria. On the issue of a fair use rationale, this needs to address why a freely licensed alternative cannot be created. Just because Jason can't magic it up in 5 minutes using Microsoft Paint does not mean that it can't be created. The next issue is the alternative created. WN:FU and foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy are both pretty clear that if a free alternative "which will serve the same educational purpose" the fair use image should be replaced. I'm not currently of the view that the alternative does provide this same educational purpose but that doesn't change the fact that an alternative can be created and so the rationale is and never can be valid. I'm also someone irritated that considered it appropriate to undelete the image against the decision of another admin. Adambro 12:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
First off, I have to agree with the There entire site is to gain publicity, and they are just praying news people talk about us point of view. However since this appears to be on the border, why don't we email them for clarification (If someone is really good and propaganda style letters, you could even try to convince them to copyleft/pd/cc/etc it). Second - creating a free version - I think it is assumed that should be taken as can reasonably have a replacement made I am not a cartography, and even if you don't need to be one to make a map, I still wouldn't be able to make a map except by essentially tracing the existing one which is derrivitive work. Maybe some of you can, but I can't and I'm sure many of us can't. Similarly you could argue that someone could recreate Image:Orion Nebula - Hubble 2006 mosaic 18000.jpg given infinite talent and time (in a painting, a raytracer, I don't really know, but I'm sure it could be done), but I'm also sure everyone would agree that would be unreasonable. So now we have to decide is it reasonable to recreate this image. Df thinks not, Adambro thinks it is. I'm not sure but I'm leaning towards DF on this one. Bawolff ☺☻ 12:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
RE: Adambro: I did nothing wrong. You decided to go and have images deleted and go around doing your thing. You did all that without even considering the opinion of other admins. The image is up for a DR not a delete it when you feel like it. As bawolff said, I do not have the talent to create such a thing. And I sure am not going to create a map from something thats already copyrighted. Again; there is currently NO alternative to this map. It is NOT in violation of any policy including the board. So until a accurate alternative exists, then this DR is invalid. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me, but doesn't all this discusion and variation of opinion show that it is valid? Also, it was me who deleted the image initially, as a free alternative was created, negating this discusion (although I now apreciate that it really isn't accurate enough to replace it). I may find time to contact them about it as suggested beow, though, and then maybe that will end this before we all start getting really frustrated here. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
And what part of the policy does it violate? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
As others have already pointed out, it's reasonable to produce a freely licensed equivalent. --+Deprifry+ 00:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment Can't we just ask them if it is OK to use in this manner? They seem to be providing us with photos and interviews, already. I suspect they will say sure it is fine and then all this could be over with. --SVTCobra 14:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I have just received two seperate emails in response to one I sent off today on the subject. Both confirm that Wikinews - and the rest of the media - may use the map. I'm off again ATM, but anyone wanting a copy can contact me and I will forward it to them (provided I trust them not to reveal my identity, which is obviously atached to my email address). Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 00:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • If either email specifies that the copyright holder releases the image under a free licence then by all means forward it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org for an OTRS volunteer to deal with. Adambro 00:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • They only state that the image is freely availible to the media - in other words, a publicity image. Would OTRS handle that as well? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 07:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    The clarification that this image is freely available to the media, publicity, is helpful to a degree but it doesn't address the primary concern of this DR as the image will still be used under a fair use rationale. The point is that we don't need to illustrate our articles with their unfree image when one could be made. Adambro 07:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment As I argued in the not totally conclusive exemption discussions old articles should not be changed. I proposed a
Copyright This image is copyrighted and no free alternative was available at time of going to press in listed articles. The individual who uploaded this image and first used it in an article, and subsequent persons who place it into articles assert that this qualifies as fair use of the material under United States copyright law. As of {{{date}}} a [[File:{{{replacement}}}|replacement]] image, {{{replacement}}} is available; all subsequent articles covering the subject(s) should use the replacement..
This image is covered under fair use as it is used to specifically identify the individual(s) mentioned in article(s). Use of the image here does not imply endorsement of any organization by the Wikimedia Foundation, nor does it imply endorsement of the Wikimedia Foundation by the organization.
 
tag for those that should not be used in future due to a free alternative becoming available. This isn't Commons or Wikipedia, so there is a time issue and a policy of archiving. Look at the discussion about the BSDM article, the criteria used by most people in that discussion was that it was too late.
I'm going to cast around for some measured thoughts on this. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose deletion. As Mike Godwin pointed out, I'm looking for a clearly marked line for Fair Use or otherwise. On the other hand, we are press and this image is intended for press use. If, say, the project had a maps geek then we wouldn't be having this conversation. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, the Admin's talk page or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Deletion_requests/Archives/2008/Q1&oldid=645329"