Wikinews:Deletion requests/Archives/2009/Q1

This is the archive of Deletion Requests that were closed from January 1, 2009 through March 31, 2009.

March 8

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

Notable Cognitive Skills Research

Came upon this while archiving. Newsworthiness? Possibly a copyvio, although I checked, and it doesn't seem to be a copyvio of any of the included links. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 14:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment I believe this could possibly be a speedy, I have no idea how this is even remotely newsworthy. R.T. 14:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
• Speedied. Probably got lost due to the mangled date template. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Request closed. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 15:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

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.

---

March 7

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

Surgery Prompts New Lease on Life and Music

Came over this while doing some archiving. No sources. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 02:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment — I think this could be speedied as it is a direct copyvio of this page: http://www.ocmusicfest09.com/news/news5.html. I'm not sure how to deal with copyvios in the archive, but I think we delete them just like normal? Gopher65_talk 02:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not certain, but I think that old copyvios (from several months ago) can be deleted on sight. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 02:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I speedy-deleted the article. Normally, we wait a day before deleting, but seeing as this is a six-month-old article, I think it very unlikely that anybody will try to fix it. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 03:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Votes

• Remove as nom. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 02:48, 7 March 2009 (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 26

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

Template:Breaking-contribute

This is pretty much a duplicate of Template:Breaking news, not really needed. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 22:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Votes

• Remove Not used (ever, I suspect). Unprofessionally written. Redundant. Remove! --SVTCobra 21:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete — I don't see any use for this that can't be filled by the breaking template. Gopher65_talk 00:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per others. Anonymous101^talk 09:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• Note Template deleted, as it has been a full week since the DR opened. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 22:37, 5 March 2009 (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 25, 2009

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

Charlesmore Partners Named a Quintegra Resourcing Premier Business Partner

Uhh... not sure how this managed to get published? I came upon it while doing some archiving. Not really a proper news article (more like a press release), so proposing deletion. Note, could be speedied. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 18:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

If nobody objects within the next couple of hours, I may as well speedy delete it. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 00:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I just realised this is a copyvio. Definitely a speedy delete. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 00:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Votes

Remove as nom. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 18:28, 25 February 2009 (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, 2009

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is Speedily Deleted. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Anonymous101

File:Continental Airlines Flight 3407 Crash.jpg

Just because we need a picture, doesn't mean we can just take others people's willy nilly. It is from a competing news organization, therefor we can not acceptably call it fair use. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Note, could be speedied. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment We did the same thing for Obama's first interview as president on an Arabic TV network. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 06:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

WN:FU says that "Photos from competing news organizations that are uploaded without permission can be deleted on sight." This image is clearly in violation of policy (and it is not currently used). And, For every second we are keeping it Wikinews is risking legal action for copyright infringement. Anonymous101^talk 07:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment In reply to DF: I don't really feel that the obama interview was as clear cut, but we definitly have a long history of deleting images from competing news sources used in the same context as the news source in question used it. Bawolff ☺☻ 08:30, 16 February 2009 (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 13, 2009

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

Template:WikiPedia

not to be confused with Template:Wikipedia

This template is not used and adds no functionality. Could probably be speedied. --SVTCobra 00:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Votes

• Remove as nom. --SVTCobra 00:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment (I know this is closed, but feel a burning desire to comment.) Mediawiki's built in [[w:Article|]] automatically converted to [[w:Article|Article]] on save is much easier. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:08, 16 February 2009 (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 27, 2009

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

File:Obama-alarabiya-screenshot.jpg

Image is clearly not free and there are plenty of images of Obama on commons. Having this particular image does nothing to the article. Not to mention its from a competing news agency. Personally I think it should be speedy deleted. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the fair use rationale? --SVTCobra 16:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I am still uneasy, but withdraw my request. If anyone would like to continue with voting, by all means. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Comment Please note that this image is only intended for use in Obama to Muslims: 'Americans are not your enemy' and only this article. Use in any other article would be a copyright violation. But in illustrating this historic interview, this is perfectly valid fair use. As you can see here, the Associated Press also believes that it constitutes fair use. --SVTCobra 16:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

1. How do we know that AP didn't license it from Al-arabiya ? Broadcasters cross-license footage all the time.
2. It may indeed be fair use, but it doesn't seem to meet the letter of Wikinews:Fair use, nor Wikinews:Image use policy, since the TV station neither licensed it to us, nor issued it in a press pack. And it is from a competitor.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: #2 Can you be more specific as to what "letter" it doesn't meet? May I remind you that we are talking about a screen shot, not a photograph. --SVTCobra 14:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Good question.

1. "Photos from competing news organizations that are uploaded without permission can be deleted on sight."
2. The screenshot exemption (if it applies, which I doubt) does not get around the absolute ban on fair use images from competition.

InfantGorilla (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It may be historic, but still does not change the fact it is from a competing agency. If this same exact photo is being used in the AP, then that means the video of the interview is not online, and therefore is still from a competing agency. If the video is online, and another screen shot can be taken, then maybe it would work. But I still do not like using competing agency's work. I know someone will bring up al-Jazeera, but certain material of theirs is already listed as cc-by-2.0(3.0?). So that situation is completely different. They are also uploaded to commons. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 15:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, its likely the AP et al., paid for their image(s). DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 15:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The image that overwrote this one, although I appreciate the homemade version, honestly it's a really bad screenshot. If I didn't see the previous image, I would almost ask who this is. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that it is of terrible quality, but issues were raised that suggested that AP paid for their use, even though I did not get it from AP but Al Arabiya directly. It was also suggested that the video was not available online, however, it is. It can be accessed at http://evideo.alarabiya.net/ShowClip.aspx?clipid=2009.01.28.13.25.49.987 --SVTCobra 00:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I went and took a better quality screenshot of the video. It is approximately the same quality as the initial image, though it is a few pixels smaller. Gopher65_talk 01:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment Well, I am done arguing for this. While I remain unconvinced by the detractors, I relent because the time window to include this image is expiring.--SVTCobra 00:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment Although not as clear a case, I think this is quite similar to File:CNN Obama.jpg. I've always believed that the Competing news organization sentance only applied to when we were reporting on the same thing they are. If we are reporting on the competing organization, they are no longer competing with us to report on some subject, but instead become the subject of our article. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Votes

• Remove Keep I am still uneasy, but given the historical significance, and the fact that a new one was obtained directly from the source, I am going to say keep. Provided its used only in the article it is pertained to. Aside from the non free status, I think the images FU its ok, so long as it follows policy of course. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep please read the fair use rationale and realize that the fact that Obama was on Al Arabia is historic and part of the story itself. AP and many other news sources are using this image to illustrate their stories about this interview. It is perfectly legitimate fair-use. --SVTCobra 16:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I tend to agree with SVT on this one. Since the subject of the article is his appearance on this specific tv station, part of what we want to illustrate on the article is the tv station. We are in essence reporting on the tv station, not on obama, thus we can use a picture of the tv station. (note: I modified the image use rationale slightly to make that clearer) (note: IANAL, my understanding of copyright is limited). Bawolff ☺☻ 05:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Remove The screenshot FUR is not really worded as intending to apply to this. Thus, the rationale boils down to "Everyone else is using it, so why shouldn't we?" I've seen this several places, credited to AP. To err on the side of caution we must assume that means they licensed the image. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I didn't obtain it from AP, but directly from Al Arabia. The new version is a 'true' screencapture of the online video, albeit lower resolution than the screenshot that Al Arabia put on their website. --SVTCobra 00:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Remove Photography (videography) by a competitor. --InfantGorilla (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2009 (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 24, 2009

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

Template:Hebrew

Useless template that isn't currently, and never will be, used for anything. It was also copy/pasted from Wikipedia, where it is one part of a series of templates that are of no particular use here. Anyway, as far as I can see all it does is set text size to 125% of standard. Gopher65_talk 22:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Votes

• Delete - Template unused and completely useless. Anonymous101^talk 12:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• Remove Articles on Wikinews should be in English only. Quotes or passages should be translated. --SVTCobra 19:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - It also sets fonts to one that could render hebrew (although most unicode fonts can - its not really a fringe language), and it sets text direction to Right to left. Maybe at some point could be useful for a userpage or talk page. No strong opinion (leaning towards delete). Bawolff ☺☻ 05:37, 28 January 2009 (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 12, 2009

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 Gopher65

Template:Controversy

Never used template (at least I've never noticed it in developing articles). On top of that, with flagged revs and peer review, I'm sure we all smart enough to detect controversial words. --TUFKAAP (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Votes

Remove as nom, --TUFKAAP (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Remove DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Remove it is too vague to be suitable as a template: an issue such as bias should be discussed on the talk page, and possibly flagged with {{npov}} or with {{tasks}} InfantGorilla (talk) 10:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• RemoveOther templates can do the same job. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Remove Essentially useless. --SVTCobra 03:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

---

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 10, 2009

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 Gopher65

Wikinews:Stop Loss

This inactive page was only edited a few times in 2006 and seems to have fallen by the wayside. We don't really need a special page for it IMO. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Votes

• Keep and tag as historic. --TUFKAAP (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep As per TUFKAAP. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Remove But I can live with {{historic}} for this. --SVTCobra 03:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and tag with {{historic}}. Adambro (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, tag with {{historic}} per above. R.T. 21:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

If we want to confirm that it has been abandoned (which seems fair enough to me), we should tag it as {{historic}} instead of deleting it. --InfantGorilla (talk) 12:16, 11 January 2009 (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 30

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is all templates deleted by Tempodivalse. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request.

Template:FrontPageMenuleet, Template:Wikinewslangleet, Template:donateleet, Template:Sisterprojectsleet, Template:Developing storiesleet,Template:FrontPageMediaMenuleet, Template:Start an articleleet, Template:Latest newsleet, Template:FrontPageSectionMenuleet

While we're at it, we may as well delete or move these to the user space? They will never get any real use. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 13:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment I moved all of the templates + the one from March 29 to his user space, so they can all be removed. Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Votes

• Move to userspace. Van der Hoorn (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Remove as already copied to user-space. --SVTCobra 21:46, 31 March 2009 (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 29

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

Template:Original storiesleet

The consensus seems to have been delete. ♪ Tempodivalse ♪ 16:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely useless template. Can't imagine we'd ever use it. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 16:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment This template is used here: Terinjokes/Main Page. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I copied the template to User:Terinjokes/Main Page/Original storiesleet and used the copied template on Terinjokes' Main Page instead. I also left a note on his talk page. Van der Hoorn (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Also, I really recommend for the future to leave a note on the user's talk page when you put something the user created, up for deletion. Even if the user isn't active, I presume most of us have the option enabled to receive an email when your talk page changes. Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Votes

• Remove or move to userspace. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Userspacify, or leave it be. Terinjoke's leet main page thingy isn't hurting anyone. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Move to userspace. Van der Hoorn (talk) 12:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Remove or Move to userspace. Jacques Divol (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Remove as already copied to user-space. --SVTCobra 21:46, 31 March 2009 (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.