Wikinews:Deletion requests/Archives/2008/Q3

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

This is the archive of Deletion Requests that were closed from July 1, 2008 through September 30, 2008.

Contents

[edit] August 23, 2008

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete, never happened. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by DragonFire1024

[edit] Texas Congressman reported to be on Obama's VP shortlist

Article is no longer news, and it can't be published now. Gopher65talk 16:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

I'll note that this isn't actually about Joe Biden, it's about Chet Edwards. I don't see how this could be redirected to the Joe Biden article, as they are about two different people. Gopher65talk 17:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No but it is about the vp selection and there is a comment about edwards in the article, and instead of just deleting something, merging seems like a good answer. The Mind's Eye (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

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 Deleted by DragonFire1024 as copy-vio. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by SVTCobra

[edit] Disney lawsuit

Just a copy/paste job. Not formatted correctly, etc. Bad title. Needs a lot of work if anybody really wanted to write an article on this it might be best to start from the beginning. (--Calebrw (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)).

[edit] Votes

Remove per nom. (--Calebrw (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)) delete - ug, another cut and paste job. Why do people do that. These can be speedy deleted for copyright violation though, can't they? Gopher65talk 19:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Yes they can. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Remove def. The Mind's Eye (talk) 19:29, 23 August 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.


[edit] August 8, 2008

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 Cirt

[edit] Template:Extreme templating

This might be funny, or might have at one point in time, but considering it is never used and never will be constructively since it serves no useful purpose I propose it is deleted. Adambro (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

  • Comment the reason it appears unused is that the articles on which it is used either get improved or — more likely — get deleted. I see no harm. It has been used within the last fornight, I believe. --SVTCobra 23:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

  • Delete Per nom. Cirt (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see it serving any useful purpose. Majorly talk 16:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Kill it with fire Silly. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not useful. It's better to remove the superfluous templates instead of posting this. Lysy (talk) 22:44, 16 August 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.


[edit] August 3, 2008

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

[edit] Template:Update

There have been some comments raised about whether or not to use this template. This deletion discussion should hopefully assess the community's input on whether or not this template should be kept. As I have recently been involved in discussion and placed the template on an article recently, I will not weigh in. Cirt (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

  • While I think notifying users of updates have their place, I don't think that the middle of the top line of the story is the place for them. GreenReaper (talk) 22:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment This template has been useful in preventing newcomers from updating old news stories and keeping forward-pointing "Related news" nearly non-existent. I do agree that it is an ugly template. It is used in a number of articles, however. I don't know if it can be "saved" or if we can have any other kind of link that points "forward" in "news time". --SVTCobra 02:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

  • delete As it stands, this template is irredeemable. It is one of the ugliest pieces of wikicode I have ever seen. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • delete Pretty ugly, and it's not actually needed here. We don't need a template telling us something needs an update. Majorly talk 23:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep although hideous, it is both usefull and in use. While I approve of thinking up a better plan, there is no ppoint in deleting this untillone has been debated properly. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Needed If it needs to be rewritten, I'm sure someone can do that part of it. I feel that it is useful. If someone in the distant future were to stumble upon a story, say "Suspect in 2001 anthrax attack dies of apparent suicide" and it updated to "Alleged Anthrax killer Bruce Ivins reportedly made edits to Wikipedia" and that updated to "US government points to dead scientist as 'lone anthrax attacker'" that user would get a nice chain of stories to read. It's the opposite of related news, which is for past stories: update is for futures stories. Just my thoughts. Friday, August 8, 2008 —Calebrw (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per others. Anonymous101talk 16:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as a hideous template doing a task which I'm not even convinced we should be doing. If we are to add links to newer stories then we do at least need to come up with a much better way of doing so. Adambro (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral Can't we just make it purdy? Ya know, fit with the rest of the templates? --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:26, 10 August 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 Deleted. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request.

[edit] 2008 TAITRONICS starts its Asian Tour in Bangkok, Thailand

Old news, about event from July 10,. Anonymous101talk 21:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

  • Since I posted several news from TAITRA's trade show, no one think my news are suitable in Wikinews, if anyone still think my news are unimportant, I think my accreditation should be revoked by myself, and I won't post any news to here forever because anyone still think my news should be abandoned and worthless.
    Frankly to say, I still think my news shouldn't be majorly modified by the others, I think I have to do my style.
    This is my bottom line, if this news still to be deleted, I will move this news into my Wiki site as anyone didn't respect my news. Brock contact... 13:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Get down off your high horse and stop being a drama queen. Quite frankly, it's getting old and boring. No-one has ever said your news stories are worthless or unsuitable or even unwanted. Your contributions are as welcome as anyone elses. However, due to the quality of your English, they take longer than the average time to copyedit, understand, and review. This is made even harder as they are OR reports, so we have few sources to work from. Accept that - while not an ideal situation - not every one of them is going to make it past the review process, whether it is due to time not being available, people simply missing them in the list, or realising when it is too late. Also accept that your standard of English is not acceptable for published news stories - yes it is harsh to say it, but it is the truth. We cannot publish articles that natives cannot read and understand, let alone those who are from other nationalities who speak English as a second, third, or even fourth language. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 13:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Since this is the indefinite truth, I decided to do the self-revocation of my accreditation. Anyone won't see any trade show from my post SINCE this time, now! Brock contact... 14:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Yawn. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 14:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. I don't consider your stories to be any less important than other tech related stories. It's just that your English is inadequate. Most of the time I can't understand even the basic gist of your articles, never mind any subtle nuances that you are trying to get across. Don't think we are picking on you; we aren't. It's just that you shouldn't be writing for an English wiki any more than I should be writing for a Spanish wiki. My Spanish simply isn't up to the standard that would be required. If I learnt more Spanish then I could write in Spanish, and the same is true for you and English. Gopher65talk 14:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

<unindent> The enthusiasm is undisputed, but the use of the English language simply isn't up to scratch. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

A damn shame given recent focus on retention. Rico was probably the most prolific original reporting journalist we ever had. --SVTCobra 01:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

  • Delete per nom. Cirt (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete sadly, as this user seem(s)(ed) keen, but it's too much work for the rest of us. Majorly talk 23:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete User seems... Unhappy --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 01:27, 6 August 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.


[edit] July 31, 2008

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is Move to userspace and delete redirects. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Cirt

[edit] Template:RingtailedFox/Directing Buttons

This template should not be in main-template space - if anything it could be in userspace (but even in that case there should not be a redirect from main-template space). Cirt (talk) 03:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

[edit] Votes

  • delete When did this user last edit anyway? --Brian McNeil / talk 11:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The user actually last edited 31 July 2008. Cirt (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Substitute and then delete Adambro (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Move it to their user space. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 19:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Substitute and then delete or Move it to their user spaceAnonymous101talk 19:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Move to userspace, definitely. The Mind's Eye (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Move to userspace, makes sense. Majorly talk 23:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Move to userspace is the only logical decision. Closing admin should make sure to clean up any latent redirects. --SVTCobra 02:08, 6 August 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.


[edit] July 30, 2008

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

[edit] Wikinews talk:2008/April/10

I accidentially bumped into this "talk" page for a date. It seems to be used like a comments page or a blog. Maybe I should have "speedied" but this was unique from what I have previously seen. I hope there are not many more like it. --SVTCobra 00:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Via a Special:PrefixIndex search, here is the complete list of pages in Wikinews talk with titles starting with "200":

I haven't looked at any of these yet, so I don't know what kind of content might be there. Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 06:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Having looked at all of these, only that one seems to have attracted anything significant other than people asking for corrections or interwikis. Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 06:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment This vote is for Wikinews talk:2008/April/10 only. As far as I am concerned, the other pages listed above are valid collaboration pages. Only Wikinews talk:2008/April/10 represents abuse IMO, with the possible exception of Wikinews talk:2006/September/19. --SVTCobra 01:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

  • Delete nominated page, keep others - Agree with the nom that this could have simply been speedied to begin with, but no matter. Cirt (talk) 02:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Please note that my Delete vote is only for the original page mentioned by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) in the nom. Cirt (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Kill it with fire --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 19:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. They're far too old to be worth keeping. Majorly talk 23:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol no support vote.svg I am afraid I cannot endorse the group deletion of all pages listed above, especially Talk:Wikinews' overview of the year 2007 which is of significant collaboration. I stand by my nomination, which is for a page abusing "talk" by communicating about entirely unrelated matters. The rest seem to be valid talk/collaboration pages. --SVTCobra 01:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete nominated page, keep others I agree with SVTCobra that this one page is not appropriate, but there is no reason to delete the rest of them and several of them include significant contributions and discussions, which is the point of having them in the first place. Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 02:05, 6 August 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.


[edit] July 27, 2008

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 Chris Mann

[edit] Obama's Europe Trip boosts lead, but not as expected

Per problems with the article as expressed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) [1], and in addition the article is quite similar to US presidential candidate Barack Obama's lead in the polls increases. Cirt (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

[edit] Votes

  • Delete as nom. Cirt (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • delete This doesn't look very salvageable as is. I cannot find any sources that back up the claim that there was expected to be a large increase from this visit. That's the one thing I could think of that would make me maybe vote for keeping but without that there's nothing we can reasonably do. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete though not really because I share SVTCobra's concerns, I'd say I agree with Brianmc's comment, "How is reporting on a poll an editorial?". However, we already seem to have a better article so this looks like a duplicate. Adambro (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Editorial might not be the best word since it doesn't give an opinion about what should happen, but it is highly speculative, especially the claim that this somehow did not provide as large a boost in the polls as would be expected. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Sentences like this: "John McCain has actually lost some voters and this is more likely due to recent gaffes than Obama’s Europe Trip." is editorializing. --SVTCobra 13:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

delete The user started the second article after the first was tagged for editorialising. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:22, 31 July 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.


[edit] July 23, 2008

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is Speedy deleted, No context, not news. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Cirt

[edit] Closed head injury Locked in syndrome Pakistan

Doesn't read like a news article, more like a blog, and looks like old news. Majorly (talk) 23:25, 23 July 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.


[edit] July 19, 2008

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

[edit] Category:Persepolis F.C.

Unused category, unlikely to be used in the near future . Anonymous101 (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

[edit] Votes

  • Delete per nom. Cirt (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per CSD O4; "Empty categories (no articles or subcategories) whose only content has consisted of links to parent categories". Adambro (talk) 23:06, 19 July 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 Speedy delete. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Cirt

[edit] Category:Hassan Rohani

Unused category, unlikely to be used in the near future IMO. Anonymous101 (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

[edit] Votes

  • Delete per nom. Cirt (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per CSD O4; "Empty categories (no articles or subcategories) whose only content has consisted of links to parent categories". Adambro (talk) 23:06, 19 July 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 Speedy delete. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Cirt

[edit] Category:Hawthorn Football Club

Unused category, unlikely to be used in the near future IMO. Anonymous101 (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

[edit] Votes

  • Delete per nom. Cirt (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per CSD O4; "Empty categories (no articles or subcategories) whose only content has consisted of links to parent categories". Adambro (talk) 23:07, 19 July 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 Delete. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Cirt

[edit] Template:Break

Unused template, not needed, doesn't look nice Anonymous101 (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

[edit] Votes

  • Delete as nom Anonymous101 (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
    I'm not sure it is really necessary for you to vote. The presumption must be that if you nominate something for deletion that you think it should be deleted unless to explicitly state otherwise. Adambro (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
    I agree in principle, but for some reason it's how we've been doing things for a while. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
    Indeed, since it seems rather pointless perhaps it is something we should try avoiding doing in future. Adambro (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Too abrasive, IMO. Cirt (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove per nom as unused. Adambro (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unused, there isn't anough breaking news at any given time for it to be likely that this will be used for some time. It's horrible enough to start from scratch anyway. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Ugly and redundant. Majorly (talk) 23:26, 23 July 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.


[edit] July 18, 2008

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 Cirt

[edit] Category:Arlington, Massachusetts

Category with one article. If we listed every town its size with a category of its own the results would be absurd. As with the others, recreation is easy if at any point there is enough coverage. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

[edit] Votes

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 Delete. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Cirt

[edit] Category:Mick Jagger

Has one article in. Not likely to be any/many more IMO so I think it should be deleted.Anonymous101 (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

[edit] Votes

  • Delete as nom Anonymous101 (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - People categories for clearly notable individuals are worthwhile, IMHO, we even have a template just for that purpose - {{people}}. Cirt (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Some individuals are notable, but, I believe, that they are not likely to receive much coverage in the near future so they are not in need of a category. I think the {{people}} is more for people like George W. Bush, who is always in the news. Mick Jagger is 64 years old and not doing anything that could go in the news at the momennt so I believe this should be deleted. If we had Wikinews 20 years ago, it would be different. Anonymous101 (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I suppose your rationale does make sense - but at what point/number of pre-existing articles would you say it would be okay to keep/create the category? Cirt (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd say it varies depending on the age of the category but I do not think that an almost three year old category should be kept if it has one article. Anonymous101 (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I've often wondered that both when setting up and deleting categories near the borderline. I think we need to decide on a sensible amount and set it in stone, so we probably better thrash this out at length over at WC. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. That sounds like a good idea. I kinda think at least 10 or so would be a good number. Cirt (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm of the view that we don't need a category for everyone in an article or two. We can create them at the time they get enough coverage. It looks bad for us if people hit the category and then discover there's nothing else to see. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Changed viewpoint per some good comments above by Anonymous101 (talk · contribs). One article in a category doesn't really necessitate the category - and I agree with Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) that the category could always be recreated if there were more existing articles. Cirt (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Per Blood Red Sandman. Majorly (talk) 23:28, 23 July 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 Delete. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Cirt

[edit] Category:Mahathir bin Mohamad

Category with one article, not needed IMO as he is not going to recieve much coverage and we don't have categorys for every former leader Anonymous101 (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

[edit] Votes

  • Delete as nom Anonymous101 (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - People categories for clearly notable individuals are worthwhile, IMHO, we even have a template just for that purpose - {{people}}. Cirt (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Some individuals are notable, but, I believe, that they are not likely to receive much coverage in the near future so they are not in need of a category. I think the {{people}} is more for people like George W. Bush, who is always in the news. Anonymous101 (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Changed viewpoint per some good comments above by Anonymous101 (talk · contribs). One article in a category doesn't really necessitate the category - and I agree with Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) that the category could always be recreated if there were more existing articles. Cirt (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Per Cirt. Majorly (talk) 23:28, 23 July 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 Delete. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Cirt

[edit] Category:Dianne Feinstein

Category with one article, not needed IMO as she is only a Senator Anonymous101 (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

[edit] Votes

  • Delete as nom Anonymous101 (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - People categories for clearly notable individuals are worthwhile, IMHO, we even have a template just for that purpose - {{people}}. Cirt (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Some individuals are notable, but, I believe, that they are not likely to receive much coverage in the near future so they are not in need of a category. I think the {{people}} is more for people like George W. Bush, who is always in the news. Anonymous101 (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Changed viewpoint per some good comments above by Anonymous101 (talk · contribs). One article in a category doesn't really necessitate the category - and I agree with Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) that the category could always be recreated if there were more existing articles. Cirt (talk) 22:19, 18 July 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 Delete. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Cirt

[edit] Category:Ann Coulter and Category:Ali Larijani

Both have one article in them. People who may well one day warrant categories, but there are loads of people who might. We should create as and when. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

[edit] Votes

Some individuals are notable, but, I believe, that they are not likely to receive much coverage in the near future so they are not in need of a category. I think the {{people}} is more for people like George W. Bush, who is always in the news. Anonymous101 (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Changed viewpoint per some good comments above by Anonymous101 (talk · contribs). One article in a category doesn't really necessitate the category - and I agree with Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) that the category could always be recreated if there were more existing articles. Cirt (talk) 22:19, 18 July 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 Delete. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Cirt

[edit] Category:Tom Harkin

Category with one article, not needed IMO he is only a Senator Anonymous101 (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

[edit] Votes

  • Delete as nom Anonymous101 (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - People categories for clearly notable individuals are worthwhile, IMHO, we even have a template just for that purpose - {{people}}. Cirt (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Some individuals are notable, but, I believe, that they are not likely to receive much coverage in the near future so they are not in need of a category. I think the {{people}} is more for people like George W. Bush, who is always in the news. Anonymous101 (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Changed viewpoint per some good comments above by Anonymous101 (talk · contribs). One article in a category doesn't really necessitate the category - and I agree with Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) that the category could always be recreated if there were more existing articles. Cirt (talk) 22:19, 18 July 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 Delete. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Cirt

[edit] Category:Tropical Despression One, 2006

Category with one article, not going to be more additionsAnonymous101 (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

[edit] Votes

  • Delete as nom Anonymous101 (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Another One Bites The Dust There seems to be loads of categories like this. We really need to crack down on disposing of them. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as nom Cirt (talk) 21:30, 18 July 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 Speedy delete. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Cirt

[edit] Category:Festival_of_Cabaret

Empty category, not needed IMOAnonymous101 (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

[edit] Votes

  • Delete as nom Anonymous101 (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as nom Cirt (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per CSD O4; "Empty categories (no articles or subcategories) whose only content has consisted of links to parent categories". Adambro (talk) 23:08, 19 July 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 Delete. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Cirt

[edit] Category:Doritos Coolpedia

Only used in one article, not really too useful. Cirt (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

[edit] Votes

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 Delete. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Cirt

[edit] Elton John's picture found to be not indecent

This article was published on October 28, 2007 with a no date template. It has no sources other than a link to the photographers Wikipedia entry. I don't know how this slipped through the cracks, but it did and it should never have been published, in my opinion. --SVTCobra 18:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

[edit] Votes

  • Keep Although the article is not of publishable standard, it has been published for months and we shouldn't break the archive because we don't like an article, IMO. Anonymous101 (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC) I missed the thing saying no date template. Vote changed to Delete Anonymous101 (talk) 07:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with nom. Cirt (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I don't mind "breaking the archives" by deleting articles which should never be published just as I don't mind doing so to remove images which should never have been included. Adambro (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove no date means it was never on the front page. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Per all of the above Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 00:54, 24 July 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.


[edit] June 1, 2008

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

[edit] Image:Fifa world cup org.jpg

I am proposing that this image be deleted because although it is tagged as CC-BY-SA-2.5 license, the image is a derivative work which leaves this license very much in question. Whilst this means that the CC license is invalid, there is of course the potential for this to be used under fair use as is done on the English Wikipedia. However there appears to be no scope within our fair use policy's whitelist where this can be used. Also, in all but one instance this image is being used in a decorative manner which adds little to the article and doesn't really benefit our readers a great deal. Adambro (talk) 11:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

  • Image is of the iconic FIFA World Cup which, like Oscar, McDonald's double-arched building, and the Eiffel Tower, is also a logo or mark. It seems to me you would be putting forth less effort to find reasons why these images are fair use on Wikinews than trying to find reasons to remove them. - Amgine | t 14:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    Amgine, if you think my reasoning for nominating an image for deletion are wrong then simply say so, it is not necessary or helpful to brand these nominations as "bogus" just because you disagree. Regarding your suggestion that the World Cup is a logo or a trademark I would disagree, would you be able to link anything to support this? Adambro (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    It seems to me you are looking first for a reason to delete the image, and second as to whether it's a good idea for this image to be deleted. This, and the previous nomination, have clear reasons to be on Wikinews and appear, to me, to have no justification for removal other than your personal campaign. Since your campaign has a long history, and is not a reason here, that would equate with a bogus listing. Bogosity, of course is a subjective measure. - Amgine | t 15:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    My "campaign" is to ensure that the images we host have a clear licensing situation. In this, and any other instances, I've considered that not to be the case and have felt unable to address this situation myself. This is why I raise it here, so that others with experience of different subjects can assess whether they can clarify the situation and if not for it to be deleted. I've done a hell of a lot of work regarding images on Wikinews and what you see appearing here on DR is the tip of the ice burg, those I don't feel I can deal with. Adambro (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

<unindent>

To add fuel to the fire I have responded to an email from Anthere and CC'd Kat Walsh. Anthere suggested this as Kat was instrumental in the drafting of the licensing resolution. [/me grumbles about her being on the scoop bouncelist.] It is fairly obvious from the way the vote is going that this image will be kept; with the way some people have "dug in" on this issue it may be viewed as, "kept in violation of policy". We can't go on like that. The policy needs to be here, on Wikinews, and should be the spirit of the licensing resolution, not the letter thereof.

If this means the Wikinews policy needs to be revised and re-approved by the board, then so be it. However I would point some people very bluntly at what our mission is - news. News needs to be timely. For this reason I believe Wikinews should be permitted to have fair use of pictures of living people. Can't get a free replacement in the week the article is on the front page? Tough. Get one later and the image under fair use is tagged as depreciated and no longer used on new articles. The archived article is not touched. If we don't stick to a principle like this, what's to stop us from ending up with a picture taken twenty years after an article is written stuck on it? Articles on Barack Obama winning his first primary showing him with grey hair from eight years in office? No thanks.

There are numerous other examples of what is fair use at a specific point in time. Everything on Wikinews is at a specific point in time, that should include the fair use criteria. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I have ever suggested that we should be replacing unfree images where a free alternative is found. If a free alternative is found however it probably demonstrates that the fair use was invalid to start with and the unfree image should probably be removed. Removing unfree images rather than replacing them with free images which, as you note, is likely to be inappropriate.
Not being able to find a free image within the seven days during which the article is open for editing is not justification to use an unfree image. Any unfree image needs a robust fair use rationale which can reasonably be expected to continue to be valid in the future. The point that people seem to be missing is that for as long as we host an unfree image we are responsible for denfending its usage. An article being archived is not a sufficient defence to continue using an unfree/against policy image, it is perfectly possible to remove such images and I somehow doubt an article being archived would protect the WMF from legal accusations.
Again the mission of the project is abbreviated to "news", I think you'll find it is more specific than that, free news. Just because other news websites have images on most of their articles then it doesn't mean that we can or should. We have to work within the restriction of limiting unfree content. Adambro (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

  • Remove Its use doesn't really add to any of the articles. If there was an article about the trophy I would support its use, however. Anonymous101 :) 13:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Hey, in his assult of reverting ALL the edits I made in order to remove my so-called copyvio, he reverted my addition of a fair use rationale and tag to the image. But, then again, I kinda have to agree with Anonymous101 here. ViperSnake151 (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is an icon, and its use in any article on a World Cup match is an illustration of what the teams are competing for. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Never mind what I just said. Keep per Brian. I have restored my (rather lengthy) rationale to it. ViperSnake151 (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per brianmc. TheCustomOfLife (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment If this is claimed to be fair use, which of the fair use whitelist criteria does it fall within? Adambro (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep time to update the fair use policy ? Anthere (talk)
    So presumably we'll be getting the board to approve any such changes? Adambro (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
No. I asked Anthere to look at this because I felt this was not what was intended with the board resolution. I asked her to comment as a member of the community, and not as a board member. It may well be the case that we revise our fair use policy and ask the board to review it; we are always going to be sailing close to the wind on these issues. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Member of the community? Hardly. Seems Anthere has called by to support your position after you sought her opinion. Whilst of course I appreciate this probably wasn't the motivation to speaking to her it doesn't look very good to see a member of the board parachute in voting keep just when you ask for her opinion. Only recently did she state that we "should not consider board members above the policies and guidelines". Presumably that also applies here. Considering she has voted "keep" without providing a reason we can treat this as having little value also taking into her account her lack of activity. Adambro (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I see no contradiction in the position I have taken. I was seeking common sense, I did not ask Anthere to cast a vote. I interpret her comment as, "if the policy doesn't allow it, then the policy is wrong". This is a message a variety of Wikinewsies have been putting across for quite some time. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Yup. Seems like basic fair use to me. No big deal certainly. Will I ask the board to approve such a change ? I am not sure what you mean here, I see not really how such a use is non consistant with our current policies. But I presume it is a matter of interpretation of the policy... Anthere (talk)
If you think Florence simply cast a vote at Brian's request, then obviously you don't know Florence very well, and I'd take back an insinuation that she acts on other people's demands. TheCustomOfLife (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks ;-) Anthere (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, per TheCustomOfLife (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    Very funny. Adambro (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove it is tagged as a logo, yet it is a photograph of the trophy. If we need to illustrate the trophy, we can use this Image:FIFA World Cup.svg. Now I don't know too much about the trophy/cup itself, but is it not on display somewhere where a free photo could be taken? Further, it's use in the articles (did anyone look at them) is as a silly little (50px) addendum at the bottom right for most of them. Rather useless. Image:World Cup 2006 logo.png is much more appropriate (and already in many of the articles). --SVTCobra 23:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    This image is a free photo taken of the cup at an event, iirc... exactly what you suggest SVTCobra. - Amgine | t 15:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    Unfortunately SVTCobra, any photograph which has as its primary subject this trophy will also be a derivative work. See the page on Commons for a better explanation than I can ever write. Adambro (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This is something that should be challenged. If people can't assert protection over their likeness and may be photographed in public, why should such a right be extended to an inanimate bit of tin covered in gold foil? --Brian McNeil / talk 09:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
That deriv stuff is really just lame. Becuase it is a picture of the trophy by someone. If its NOT copyrighted, And I or and average person took the photo, then its whatever they want the license to be. If I go and take a picture of the Stanley Cup, then I have whatever right I want to license it as such, even CC. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Adambro is simply wrong in this instance. The image is of the trademarked FIFA cup, and therefore images/reproductions of it may not be sold. There is *no* specific protection of the non-trade use of such likenesses however. (e.g. you could build a house as a replica and live in it, but you couldn't *sell* the house, or charge for coming to see it/rent it out, or in any other way realize a return for it being a replica.) None of which justifies its presence here; it just removes the rational for requesting the deletion. - Amgine | t 03:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Is the actual Cup itself trademarked and copyrighted, though? If so, it unfortunately has to be remove, keep otherwise. How does the Stanley Cup in this image hold up compared? rootology (T) 03:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
In response to Amgine's comments, you seem to be confirming that the CC-BY-2.5 license is invalid as I've suggested if commerical use is prohibited. Therefore this image has to be used on Wikinews under fair use as it is tagged at the moment although it most certainly isn't a logo and I see no evidence that it is a trademark either. It does however remain a derivative work. Adambro (talk) 06:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Response to Rootology: I've requested clarification from FIFA as to the trademarked status of the actual cup; in every image/title of the cup on their website it is "(TM))"ed, and they go to pains to point out that winners of the cup receive a facsimile of the cup while FIFA retains all rights to the original object (in part because Brazil - deservedly - was given the previous cup in perpetuity.) I do not have a statement from a lawyer, yet, indicating it is trademarked, but I have every reason to believe such is the case. I am not aware of the status of Lord Stanley's Cup, but in the USA at least it would likely have at least unregistered mark rights.
Response to Adambro: So long as a mark is used to refer to the brand or owner of the mark, even in trade use (for example in a news article in a commercial paper,) it is legal and the cc-by license would be applicable to the photo itself, which would be copyrightable. On the other hand, if the image were being sold, for example as stock imagery, it might not be legal as it could be a trademark infringement. And, incidentally, even so the image should be copyrightable. In a simpler words: taking a picture of the cup at an event in which it is publicly displayed is fine if used to refer to FIFA or the cup; sell that image as stock footage without a release from the trademark owner and you might be infringing. - Amgine | t 05:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I find it ridiculous that an photo I took of whatever it might be, of a cup, trophy, whatever, is not MY photo to do with as I please. If I took that photo of the cup, regardless of where it was at, I should be able to own ALL rights to that photo. Trademark or not, if they display it in a public forum, where your are ALLOWED to take pictures of it, then its my photo and no one can say to me I cannot license it as I choose. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
In general, you're right DragonFire1024. But, in certain circumstances - such as when you are required to sign a waiver of rights as part of gaining your event press pass in which you give up the right to publish or sell your photos except in a news venue - FIFA would have some control over what you do with your images. So it's *possible* this image is not correctly cc-by, but extremely unlikely, and even so still qualifies as Fair Use under the WN:FU logos. - Amgine | t 20:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Come on now DragonFire1024, I've already linked to the explanation of the concept of a derivative work twice at least, well just for your benefit here it is again. Please take the time to read and understand this important concept. It is most definetly not the case that you can do what you wish with a photograph you have taken. This isn't a Commons or WMF policy it is copyright law, so if you have any issues with it then raise it with the US government.
Amgine's comments as to in what circumstances a photograph you have taken might not be yours to do as you wish don't address the issue of derivative works. The trophy, unless there is evidence to the contrary, is no a logo or a trademark, although it is a creative work so any subsequent work which has it as its main element will be not free for the creator to do as they wish. Therefore the photograph of the trophy is not available under CC-BY even if the photographer has agreed to release it under this license. The suggestion that we can use this under fair use as logo is also questionable since as I've noted, it isn't a logo. Of course the community could try to find some way to allow the inclusion of this image by way of changing our policies but until then we work by the current rules under which I see no way in which we can use this image. Adambro (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

<unindent>

I would point out that the above discussion indicates that the community would be more than happy to have the project guidelines changed so we didn't have to keep deleting stuff and having these disruptive discussions. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I also want to say that we are not commons. I really, in this case don't care what Commons says about an image NOT on their site. As far as I am concerned, in this case, I don't care what commons has to say about a deriv. Again this is a photo someone took and licensed it as they wanted, which is their right. If commons doesn't like that, then too bad. And no one has yet provide proof this is a deriv. I know Amgine is trying, but beyond that I see no reason to continue this argument. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This really is getting boring. Of course we aren't Commons and I haven't suggested this to be the case. I've highlighted the Commons page because it provides a good explanation of the concept of derivative works but you can read about it on Wikipedia or no doubt in US laws. I would disagree that there isn't evidence that this is a derivative work, go and read the Commons page and if you don't like what you read there then go somewhere else and learn about it, don't just plead ignorance. You clearly don't understand the concept of derivative works so instead of continuing your misinformed argument that a photo you've taken is yours to do as you wish, go and learn about the issue. Adambro (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Adambro: I have never seen a copyright symbol placed anywhere near the FIFA World Cup, yet I have seen (tm). To be a derivative work the original work must be copyrighted and copyrightable. Please prove to us that such is the case, and perhaps this argument might receive more consideration. - Amgine | t 17:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 :Everything is copyrighted unless otherwise specified. Anonymous101 :) 17:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
No, actually, that's not true. Functionality, design, and many other things are not copyrightable. Read trademark. - Amgine | t 17:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the item's copyrightability, which is not necessarily given as per Amgine, it isn't the Wikimedia Foundation which has said that you can't use copyrighted emblems to illustrate their related subjects. Rather, the WMF has only established that non-free works are only to be used where they are legal and essential to the informative value of the work, and where they couldn't be replaced with a freely licensed work. Iff the trophy is indeed a copyrightable work, then there really isn't a replacement: Any non-derivative alternative would be a fraud for the purpose of illustrating the trophy. This is both my understanding and Anthere's and I don't believe there is much of a genuine dispute over the WMF licensing policy allowing use of images like this in the appropriate contexts... If Wikinews policy is somewhat too restrictive to allow this, and the contributors here feel that its important then it might be reasonable to tweak the policy some. I'd be glad to help.

What concerns me most here is a pattern of argument and behavior which I've seen in the past on English WP as well: Someone, often someone who supports abandoning all restrictions on non-free works, picking the most obnoxious corner case possible, then they argue that it's not permitted (even if it may well be) and ultimately people argue that because this one strawman burns easily that the whole policy needs to be ditched. It's a fallacious line of argument. And to claim that policy makes you behave disruptively? Oh please, is time to transwiki Wikipedia:Ignore all rules over to WikiNews?

At the top we start with a corner case which other projects seem to have no issues allowing and continue on to Brian McNeil arguing "News needs to be timely. For this reason I believe Wikinews should be permitted to have fair use of pictures of living people. Can't get a free replacement in the week the article is on the front page? Tough." which sounds an awful lot like justification for taking the press photography from competing news sources, an activity which would be clearly illegal and of questionable ethics to even those who don't think highly of copyright law. Lets be real, we're talking about a trophy image up for deletion here, It's time for people to put down their agendas and correctly handle this particular issue the best we can. --Gmaxwell (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I am most certainly not arguing we claim fair use on images from competing news agencies, and you are seriously misrepresenting my viewpoint to claim such. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay. But whom exactly is Wikinews going to most frequently take such images from? The obvious non-free sources of stock headshots are companies which make a substantial portion of their income from selling their works to publications such as Wikinews. The only source I can think not failing that test is non-freely licensed publicity photos release by the person or their agent(s), .. okay, but if thats what you're talking about then you should probably be saying "WN should allow non-free publicity photos" rather than "WN should allow 'fair-use' photos. --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:40, 24 June 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 delete - speedy closed per WP:SNOW. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Anonymous101

[edit] String theory proven wrong?

Very similar to Man in Winter Haven, Florida claims to have found reason for gravity and You are not a zero ! and again The article is about a some person inventing a theory of everything. And again, none of the listed sources are credible and relivant to the article. (Note:The user who created this was the IP who wrote the last two similar articles)Anonymous101 (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

In addition to this, the latest source is two months old so it is not news. Anonymous101 (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

  • Comment Now the new source has been added, and as with the main source in all the recently deleted articles, it is describing Mark M. Fiorentino and from peswiki.com. Anonymous101 (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I am wondering how - in words of one syllable - to explain that no wiki that any numpty can edit is not a credible source. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Wikinews has a special place in its heart for kooks and crackpots. It can be found here. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

  • Delete as nom Anonymous101 (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove this is not news. The most recent of the sources is May --SVTCobra 17:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove per SVTCobra. Adambro (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove or otherwise Exterminate! --Brian McNeil / talk 17:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove and if one more of his nonsense articles is brought to DR, I say indef block. It's ridiculous; after three attempts he should know that these don't fly. Write about oil or Zimbabwe or something that's actual news. Mike Halterman (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Agreed: no new revelations. Wikidsoup (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Write about oil or Zimbabwe or something that's actual news

be careful you might get what you wish for. This is ofcourse all about everything. I will try even more practical solutions.--Bugliosi Fan (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you even indef block a news article? Such Delusions of grandeur I have never before come across. --Bugliosi Fan (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I can do anything I put my mind to (and with admin rights, its especially easy to prevent a page from being created. as a matter of fact there a three different methods to do just that.) Of course the author of said articles would probably get blocked first for not knowing when to quit before we'd prevent a specific article from being created. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the author has delusions of adequacy. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:27, 9 July 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 delete - speedy closed per WP:SNOW. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Anonymous101

[edit] You are not a zero !

Very similar to Man in Winter Haven, Florida claims to have found reason for gravity and again The article is about a some person inventing a theory of everything. And again, none of the listed sources are credible. Anonymous101 (talk) 06:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

  • Comment I enjoy watching TV such as Dr Who and Sliders, that certainly doesn't make me think it is true or something I should believe in. It is entertainment, and I am well aware that the creators and producers work hard to minimise the aspects that cause cognitive dissonance. Without reputable publications carrying this dreck you're so desperate to promote it is no different. I have a nice black fedora that I'd be happy to cut up and eat in sandwiches if one of these amateurs you think are the saviour of the world gets a Nobel prize within the next twelve months. Somehow I think at the end of that period I'll still be putting the hat on my head. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

  • Delete as nom Anonymous101 (talk) 06:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Anonymous101 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 06:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove per nom. Adambro (talk) 08:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove So now Mark M. Fiorentino is a philosopher? This guy is a hobbyist at best.--SVTCobra 17:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Exterminate! Who is the crackpot that keeps trying to get this pseudoscience published? --Brian McNeil / talk 17:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove I believe his theory is soon going to be disproved when this article turns into nothing. --+Deprifry+ 18:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Funny News We'll see if this disappears. Until then, good luck on believing in your Dr. Who and Sliders universe. I wonder who is laughing the loudest? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bugliosi Fan (talk • contribs) Votes made by a new account which wrote the above article (not logged in) should not be counted
    None of us are "believing" anything, except that this isn't news. I know I'm not laughing at all because I don't find these articles amusing in the slightest. Mike Halterman (talk) 19:13, 9 July 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.


[edit] July 6, 2008

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete closed per WP:SNOW. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Anonymous101

[edit] Man in Winter Haven, Florida claims to have found reason for gravity

This is nonsense, not one of the listed sources is credible. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

" The article is about a guy that claims to have found the biggest piece of his gravity puzzle "

The only verification that is needed from Wikinews is that

1) It is possible, not impossible, that relativity, same as superstring, can be appended just the same, to Super Relativity

2) This is not about the central cause of gravity, which should be referenced, this is only about the claim that some computational solution has been found by an ex IBM-engineer. (also see recent title modification) This claim is being referenced from quotes from the author, which are publicly available.

It is, as Brian McNeil will probably point out, not needed that Wikinews would be saying that a mathmatical solution is found.This is only about that one 'claim'. If this claim is indeed made by the author and the engineer in question, Wikinews will not be subject to any liability in the case that this claim will not be fullfilled in the near future. The liability in such lies at the sources which are cited.--83.134.75.215 22:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's see how Brian McNeil performs his fact-checking and news on current events reporting:--83.134.75.215 03:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

These are the sources specified:

sources removed by User:Adambro, someone, they are listed on the article and not needed as part of this discussion. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I suppose I could email Stephen Hawking and ask him about this, I have his email address handy. Would a {{remove}} vote from Cambridge University stop the disruption of Wikinews and the editing of votes by established contributors? --Brian McNeil / talk 08:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
    I don't remember removing the list of sources. Are you sure that was me? I'm not sure we should give much value to any votes from anyone who isn't an established contributor even if they are Stephen Hawking, I don't think we need to, we can deal with this perfectly well ourselves. Adambro (talk) 08:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Apologies, I struck your name from my comment. The page was a mess and the IP address promoting this has hacked DR about so much, removing votes and spouting off that it was difficult to tell who did what without actually spending hours reviewing every edit. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

See also similar issues at article also created by 83.134.75.215 (talk · contribs) -- You are not a zero !. Cirt (talk) 05:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

  • Remove To publish a story about a claim to have found the cause of gravity without independent verification would leave the credibility of Wikinews in serious question. This story seems to refer to recent claims at http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Superrelativity that Fiorentino has "found the theory of everything", until the paper which he says "will explain all of your questions" is published and independently verified it wouldn't be appropriate for us to publish a story on such a claim. Adambro (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
A paper which is claimed will not be published for months. It seems more likely it will be shot down in flames by respected academics and Wikinews would be left looking stupid for publishing something which - for all we know - is being rabidly promoted by the author. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Remove as nom. Despite use of PDF format by some, none of the sources look credible. This is fringe science. The IP address responsible has been involved on the topic on Wikipedia and appears to have simply migrated here due to OR being allowed. My patience was exhausted on the talk page, not one credible peer-reviewed source was offered, and if there is any meat to this story it should be brought back when it has been properly peer-reviewed and is not "hey man!" speculation. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove None of the sources specified are legitimate.Gopher65talk 22:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.134.75.215 (talk • contribs) Anonymous users cannot vote in deletion requests
  • Remove Publishing unvetted scientific theories proposed by hobbyists is not what Wikinews should be doing. It would open the door for a vast array of pseudo-scientific theories. We recently had an attempt to publish a theory by a Turkish man who had "discovered" the location of the Holy Grail. Curiously, he too is a software engineer. --SVTCobra 14:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per above comments Anonymous101 (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment this is exactly why these sources need to be burning your eyelids. The turkish man had no fans.

This thing by some guy actually has fans. In any case we're not talking about unicorns. We're talking about Einstein and Hendrik Lorentz.--83.134.75.215 02:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever read a biography of Stephen Hawking. He even himself finds it crazy that the world are so interested in his matmatical abilities. In any case this has nothing to do with his virtual particles (another word for "a lie", look it up) and his 7 extra dimensions. He is not so well-versed in relativity anyway. You can look that up also.

CommentOn the other hand if you have contact information for some big relativists you are happy to provide one so we can maybe perform an expert interview within collaboration??? --83.134.75.215 02:48, 9 July 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.


[edit] July 5, 2008

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 Cirt

[edit] Category:Neopaganism

No articles, only one or two possibles in the archive. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

  • Various templates that were edited to include this will also need reverted should it be deleted. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

  • Remove as nom. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove as nom --Ilikepie2221 (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Anonymous101 (talk)
  • Remove we are not in need of further religious sub-categories. This one is new and should be removed. It can be recreated if need ever arises. --SVTCobra 01:45, 8 July 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/Q3&oldid=686509"
Personal tools
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Wikinews
Regions
Print/export
Toolbox