Wikinews:Deletion requests/Archives/2009/Q2

This is the archive of Deletion Requests that were closed from April 1, 2009 through June 30, 2009.

June 14, 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 Tempodivalse

Category:Dera Ismail Khan

Ridiculously small geographic area. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 07:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Votes

• Remove as nom. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 07:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Remove, per nom. Also maybe Category:North-West Frontier Province and Portal:North-West Frontier Province? Cirt (talk) 07:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The contributor has set up categories for all the Pakistan regions. Another one I saw recently was Category:Cleveland, England. I can understand US states as cats as many are bigger than a lot of European countries, but these micro-divisions will never really be properly applied. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 07:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. However I do seem to remember having a community discussion somewhere that categories should have at least 5 or more entries, perhaps we should make it 10. Cirt (talk) 07:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Brian, Cleveland is (well, technically speaked 'was') an English county. Other counties have categories. Plus, the area's local to me so I expect I'll be writing quite a bit on it. Computerjoe's talk 09:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Remove as there is almost no coverage of this site-wide. However, if Wikinews coverage of this area increases later (wich is unlikely), then it can be readded. Tempodivalse [talk] 13:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Dera Ismail Khan is a notable city, and it deserves a category just as any city does. Plus, the subdivision categories do not deserve to be deleted, firstly because I will be working a lot on them, and secondly, because there is almost some new stuff happening in Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province region (the current political, economic situation over there as well as the war against terror is an example). You can see this is evident by the fact that this category has 5 articles already (4 of which I created myself). If this is deleted, it is like sprawling all my efforts into thin air. Ali Rana (talk) 07:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

We don't have city categories, take a look. They're irregularly maintained and applied. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 11:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Your efforts are more likely to get zapped into oblivion. Mainly for putting {{publish}} on them when no review had been done, but more because they're all pretty much stale now. All articles MUST be reviewed and a {{peer review}} template filled out on the talk page by an independent contributor with the editor privilege. If not, then due to the wonders of Flagged Revisions your article will never appear on the main page. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 11:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Remove If - if - people are actively ensuring a particular small area category is maintainad and there are plenty of articles then we can keep a hold of it e.g. London does alright for itself. In this case, there is only one article. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Remove Redirect to Pakistan? Calebrw (talk) 14:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

  This is a rather unlikely search term, so I don't think a redirect to the Pakistan category is really necessary. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:30, 18 June 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.

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is PROD delete as very stale and abandoned. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Tempodivalse

June 13, 2009

Labour councillor accused of tampering with David Cameron's Wikipedia article

Closed as DELETE. The one week is not completely up yet, but as the story is now very stale and abandoned, and the author has requested deletion himself, I see no reason to prolong this any longer. It is impossible it will be published at this point. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Navel-gazing --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 21:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Votes

• Remove per nom --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 21:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I'm not very active over here at Wikinews, so I'm not sure if my "vote" counts, but it just doesn't seem newsworthy. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Enough coverage by mainstream media. Computerjoe (talk) 21:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

  It's an ongoing controversy, not a news event. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment only: Has received a lot of coverage in the national press and some in the international press (who thought the matter sufficiently newsworthy) . Quality of research is superior to those sources and does a very good job of correcting factual inaccuracies which caused damage, and does this in a balanced and technically competent way. Esowteric | Talk 21:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Remove As interesting as w:Steve Davis. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Obviously, as I authored the thing. Argumentum ad Jimbonem: Jimbo Wales is aware of the story – I asked him if it was okay to put his quote in, and he said yes on his WP user page. The arbcom and Boothroyd have been invited to add a statement as well; so far, neither of them have responded. Like it or not, this thing made it into the papers, even in New Zealand and Italy (!), who thought it interesting enough, but made a complete mess of reporting it. The real story should be told. And my bad if my news writing ability evokes Steve Davis. Any help appreciated. Change to Remove. Enough of the drama; those interested (i.e. Wikipedians) probably know the real story by now, the rest ain't interested. --Jayen466 (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Your writing is pretty good for something that I think is a non-story. That's the issue. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 07:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a niche topic. People who read IT blogs and the like may be interested in it, and perhaps some UK Labour supporters; the general population will yawn. Perhaps getting the word "Labour" in the title might help. --Jayen466 (talk) 11:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Renamed accordingly. Header above changed to reflect new title. --Jayen466 (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Argumentum ad Jimbonem doesn't work on this wiki. He carries little weight here; he isn't even a sysop. Computerjoe (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

  • It was kind of humorous. --Jayen466 (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Remove, echo problems with this as raised above by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs), also a problem is WN:NPOV. Cirt (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Not what you said in the AfD over at WP, where you argued Keep for the same topic. [1][2] --Jayen466 (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Different site, different guidelines. In one case there is w:WP:NOTE, but here the article is being used violating WN:NPOV. Cirt (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Do you object to the mention of the Scientology case, or is there any other area in which you see NPOV concerns? --Jayen466 (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
        • That does seem like COATRACK, yes. I will note that problems with the article, including WN:NPOV, have been raised at the article's talk page, prior to being raised here. Cirt (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Well, if there is consensus, we can always take these comments out. It just seemed like a good idea, while we were at it, to address perceived shortcomings in media reporting of the Scientology decision as well, as noted in the WP Signpost and discussed, as far as the erroneous LA Times article is concerned, here. The cases are not unrelated; if the Scientology case had not brought a spotlight on the arbitration committee in late May, I doubt Sam Blacketer's resignation would have been mainstream news a week later. --Jayen466 (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I am not surprised that problems have been raised; I have not written an article from scratch here before. However, I do think that there is a story to tell, however inadequately I may have told it, and that Wikinews is the only place where it can be told. --Jayen466 (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Wikinews is not the Wikipedia Signpost. Cirt (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
              • FWIW, I have taken out the comments on media reporting of the Scientology case and generally tried to tighten the text up a bit. --Jayen466 (talk) 09:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Remove Agree with other remove votes. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Remove Doesn't seem to meet WN:CG and newsworthiness guidelines. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Abstain As much as I think this story should be told, it's grown stale and it really does fail WN:SG. However I can't bring myself to say keep or delete. Calebrw (talk) 03:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Enough coverage by mainstream media. Possibly change title though to falsely accused 08:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Agathoclea (talk • contribs)
• Remove — Sorry to pop-in from en:wp like this, but I was just directly offered the link on w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Blacketer controversy. Looking at yon page I see pretty much what's getting run over with a truck on the 800lb Gorilla. As I've said over there, this is protracted wiki-drama. I'm not sure of the norms here, so, to whomever closes this, ya, I know I'm not a regular and don't know the ropes here. Be warned though, give the en:wp-mob a precedent and they'll be back again, and again. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Remove per Jack Merridew. I understand Wikinews procedures are not the same as en-Wikipedia so presumably the closer of this debate will disregard this opinion if it is inappropriate to give weight to it. If it is thought essential to 'put the record straight' as regards the editing of David Cameron, then I suggest that someone write up a special investigation and submit it to the Wikipedia Signpost instead. May I also say that even if it accords with policy, it is still highly inappropriate for en-Wikipedia user Bondegezou to contribute to the article. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

  Wikinews has a policy on conflict of interest, where it is lacking is in "institutional conflict of interest", i.e. reporting on other Wikimedia projects. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

  Terima kasih, Sam. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

  I can confirm that I am Bondegezou on en-Wikipedia. Sorry, I forgot accounts don't carry over. If anyone thinks the edit I made was inappropriate, please do change it. For full disclosure, I was in an edit-dispute with Mr Boothroyd as Fys on en-Wikipedia in late 2007. I have no view on whether to keep or remove this article. 83.104.35.37 (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. The article seems to have the wrong headline. The current material would be best described as "Media misreports Wikipedia resignation", since it's mostly concerned with proving that there are errors in the press sources. The real news story is something more like, "Wikipedia arbitrator resigns after other accounts revealed". Such an article might be worth a paragraph or two. Will Beback (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• KeepThere were major errors in the general press on this subject. If we as a project can show that we can do a better, more accurate article that also helps correct those serious flaws then that is a good thing. A decent article explaining in particular the deep errors concerning the David Cameron matter is not at all a bad idea. Moreover, claims that this isn't newsworthy are not valid given that major news publications covered aspects of this story (indeed, there was international coverage). I think it may make sense to change the title and focus to emphasize more how the press got the Cameron story wrong. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Remove I have to agree with the other voters and question it's news worthiness. That said, the article was well put together. --Jamesepain (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Comment: Nomination flawed? With respect, which particular policy violation does "navel-gazing" fall under other than a rhetorical "I don't like it"; and therefore what is the technical basis for responses of "del. as per nom."? (aka "I don't like it, either"). I would say that "as interesting as Steve Davis" falls into this category and "controversy is not news" is a patent falsehood. May lead to systemic bias. Just a thought from a Wikinews newbie. Esowteric | Talk 09:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"Articles must fall foul of the Criteria for deletion to be listed here". This doesn't mean after a flawed nomination, does it? Esowteric | Talk 10:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

WN:NOT..Wikinews is not a dumping ground for failed Wikipedia articles. Just because it got deleted from Wikipedia doesn't mean it's likely to be better received here, especially if the original article was not neutrally written, had no sources, and had nothing to do with current affairs. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I don't doubt you're right: I'd go along with that. Cheers, Esowteric | Talk 18:18, 14 June 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.

June 9

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 DragonFire1024

2008 Summer Olympic - Women's Soccer: Matchday 1

This, apparently, was supposed to be a prepared story, but the Wikinews:Story preparation/ prefix was never added. Now that the Olympics have been over for months, it no longer serves any use. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Votes

• Remove as nom. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Remove uncompleted, still flagged prepared. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Remove no point in keeping it around, and things like this should be speedyable... --Killing Vector (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Remove (speedy). Since never published, I think it can be deleted without a request. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:02, 10 June 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.

June 8

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

Template:Credibility

I don't believe this template is needed. According to a discussion several years ago here, it appears as though it was intended for use on articles where the credibility was not assured. Since we don't publish articles that have no credited sources and strive to be as credible as possible, this template seems redundant. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Votes

• Remove as nom. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• Remove though it could be redirected to {{correction}}. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• Remove --SVTCobra 00:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Remove--Brian McNeil / ^talk 07:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Remove No conceivable use for the template as we don't accept anything like what it was intended for. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Remove An article with concerns about the credibility of its content wouldn't be published in the first place, if these concerns were raised later then {{correction}} would be the appropriate template. Adambro (talk) 13:35, 9 June 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.

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is Redirected to Template:Breaking review. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Cirt

Template:Urgent

This was one of Wikinews' first templates, made way back in November 2004. With the addition of {{breaking}}} and {{breaking review}}, it has become redundant (and it hasn't been used for ages). I suggest we either delete or redirect this to {{breaking review}}.

Votes

• Redirect per nom. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect seems most apropriate, I agree. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect is the best option I believe. Although if it's not been used for a while then maybe delete as it is redundant anyway? --92.233.168.83 (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC) --Meekel (TalkToMe) 13:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to {{Breaking review}} Adambro (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Don't forget to fix Wikinews:Article stage tags if you do. Uncle G (talk) 20:30, 9 June 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.

June 2, 2009

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is Kept - Consensus seems to be that articles should be retained even where they are demonstrated to be more fiction that fact so this is no longer the appropriate venue to discuss any outstanding problems with this article.. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Adambro

Passengers on Air France Flight 447 sent text messages to family members before plane disappeared

I consider it dangerous for us to base an entire article on suggestions that passengers on the flight might have sent text messages before the plane disappeared. It is entirely based upon the comments by someone named "Ronaldo Jenkins" to Jornal de Notícias but a Google search doesn't really turn up a great deal about this individual. This article effectively only has a single source, Jornal de Notícias, for what is its main subject. I think we should treat this with much greater caution. Whilst recognising that some aircraft are equipped with technology to enable passengers to use mobile phones in-flight, comments on Comments:Passengers on Air France Flight 447 sent text messages to family members before plane disappeared highlight some of the technical issues that make this story more doubtful.

It is perhaps worth highlighting an incident that happened after the crash of Helios Airways Flight 522 which the Wikipedia article describes: "News media widely reported that shortly before the crash a passenger sent a text message indicating that one of the flight crew had become blue in the face, or roughly translated as "The pilot is dead. Farewell, my cousin, here we're frozen." Police later arrested Nektarios-Sotirios Voutas, who admitted that he had made up the story and given several interviews in order to get attention". I think we should learn the lessons from that incident that we should treat claims like this with great caution. I therefore suggest this article is deleted. Adambro (talk) 12:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I note that Air France according to this were trialling a service to allow their passengers to send and receive text messages in flight on their European routes. If anyone can find any evidence to suggest this flight might have had this service it would be helpful but I'm not sure it would convince me of the validity of this story though because the lack of verifiability is the major issue for me. Adambro (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Votes

• Keep See reason in comment section. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• Remove Appears to fail WN:CG definition of "What is 'news'?". There isn't a sufficiently reliable source available - it all comes down to one person's report from what would be a highly emotionally charged situation being re-reported, with critical details missing, such as the timestamps shown on the messages. This is over and above the issue of the situation being profoundly unlikely and there being a history of similar situations in the past turning out to be hoaxes. If the messages existed, would the authorities not have wanted the details such as timestamps to help pinpoint the search area and any other value they could add to the investigation? Far too many doubts about the authenticity of this report for it to be here (doubts which would be allayed if the requirements of WN:CG were met). -- Rob.au (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: This is this user's first post to Wikinews. Cirt (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

How is this relevant? -- Rob.au (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Its relevant in that you managed to make an excellent first contribution to wikinews with your comment - Note also that that was Cirt's gazillioth post on wikinews and he still hasn't caught the spirit of what wiki is on about - keep on posting Rob! --Ransu (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Even if this turns out to not be the case, then we quoted the proper sources that said it. Also note that the Brazilian officials confirmed the messages were sent. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 13:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

  Comment Both articles cite only one source, Ronaldo Jenkins, described only as "O presidente do sindicato das empresas aeronáuticas do Brasil". -- Rob.au (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

  Maybe Google Translate is letting me down but it doesn't even seem to name the organisation that this individual Ronaldo Jenkins is supposed to belong to. This would seem to me to be yet another cause for concern as to the likely validity of the story. Adambro (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

  See my comment below. He's a technical adviser with SNEA, who have posted a clear notice on their website stating that the report is false, meaning it's confirmed fake. -- Rob.au (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Even if this turns out to be a hoax, deletion is not the proper course to take as this has been up for so long. Instead, we should apply a {{correction}} notice to inform readers. (Note that the custom has been to apply a correction notice to an article that has been proven to be false, not simply delete it.) Tempodivalse [talk] 14:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I believe this is newsworthy and has reliable sources. -Meekel (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• Remove The source of this article doesn't appear to be reliably sourced, and the fact that it hasn't been picked up by reliable publications seems to indicate that. Also, the incident just doesn't ring true -- wouldn't the people have said a bit more than they did? Mveric (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

  I would clarify this by saying that although it has been picked up by respected publications like The Guardian, they are treating the claims with an appropriate degree of caution by describing the reports as unconfirmed and it forming just a small part of a much larger article. Adambro (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

  I can believe the messages are that short. I can probably claim to be the only erson here who has been on an aircraft that appeared likely to crash, although my prospects were rather better as we were over fields in something vaguely aproaching wings level. It did occur to me to send the stereotypical 'I love you'. I settled for preparing for evacuation instead; I had one of the better seats. In the end we made it to a runway. Strangely, it was only frightening some time after the event. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Remove Based on only a single report with a source whose origin has been declared as false by an official organization the report claims its based on. Also the report is both dubious and implausable. Keeping the article is potentially humiliating to wikinews. --Ransu (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep When it comes to synthesis of sources, it's not up to us to decide what is true or not; it's up to us to report what is being reported by others. When people write their own journalism, they can decide what they would choose to say or not. Don't blur the lines. Mike Halterman (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

  'its up to us to report on what is being reported' ... yes, and its up to us to make informed judgments which ones we should pass onto wikinews - the internet is a maelstrom of garbage (if you haven't noticed) - by your criteria, we'd end up reporting on everything and the kitchen sink ... no! we have criteria on what is newsworthy and trustworthy, to report on - when we exercise caution and selection on what is reported - not jumping on every first report, considering if the stories are plausible, credible etc. we are being true journalists! the source that the paper refers to has said they never said such thing - that is a clear cut case of false reporting then - why should we not be able to make that judgement? are we mere automata, worthy of being replaced by a bot? think about it - thinking is good! --Ransu (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep There is no valid reason for deletion. We can use the correction template as mentioned above. Had this never been published - and perhaps it never should have - then it should be deleted. There is precedent for using correction; see my own mistake with Ukranian manufacturer preparing to sell Adolf Hitler dolls. That was bigger in that many major news sites reported this and so the hoax was a story in its own right, and I don't suggest doing the same here, but nonetheless that's how we do it. We are better than sweeping it under the carpet. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

  I've explained on the article's talk page why we should delete hoaxes rather than keeping them. It provides no benefits to do so but continues to highlight our error in publishing the article in the first place and so damages our credibility. Adambro (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

  Deleting articles with nothing left behind is what reduces our credibility. I like to think we are better than that. We can explain that we knew we had a hoax, instead of sweep it under the carpet. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

  Seconded. Deleting articles such as these without as much a trace would only damage our credibility, accountability, and reputation. It would make it look as if we were trying to sweep our mistakes under the rug and try to pretend they never happened. I believe we should inform readers that the information that they have been presented with has turned out to be incorrect or false. There are certainly no "benefits" to be obtained from not deleting the article, but removing it is still a worse choice in my opinion. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) at 16:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC). Calebrw (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Our article says "According to the Portuguese newspaper Jornal de Notícias" which is absolutely true. It was reported. However, it would be appropriate to have a follow-up article that explains that the earlier reports have now been denied. --SVTCobra 21:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• Remove The piece of new was already denied by the source the Brazilian SEA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 95.95.232.101 (talk • contribs)

Comments

• I am opposed to deletion as many thousands have read this already. If it is proven to be incorrect a notice should be placed on the article, not deletion - which seems like Adambro's hammer. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

  The article has been published for around 16 hours now and for as long as it is published our readers will of course continue to read it. Surely though, it is in our interests to delete it now due to the verifiability concerns rather than later when it does turn out to be a hoax. The more readers who see this then later discover it to be false, the more our reputation is harmed. In the rush to publish this article, we don't seem to have treated the comments one individual made to one newspaper with an adequate degree of caution. I'd be less concerned if this was a brief mention of the reports from Jornal de Notícias in another article but this entire article is focused on this and that in my view is giving the reports far too much weight. This story, effectively based upon a single source, should never have been published. I'd rather many more "thousands" didn't read this until we can be more confident about it. Adambro (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you even read the sources? There are 2 sources. One in Norway and Portugal. If anyone can provide sources to say this article is not true, then be my guest. Until then all this talk about it being a hoax is pure speculation and nothing more. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 13:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Also see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/01/air-france-crash-passengers The Guardian: Contact with the plane was lost five hours and 20 minutes after it took off. Unconfirmed reports in a Portuguese newspaper said passengers on board senttext messages saying "I love you" and "I am scared" to relatives when they realised their plane was in trouble. A report in the Jornal de Noticias cited a Brazilian official from an aviation union. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 13:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ha! I'm rather amused that my suggestion that this could be a hoax is being branded "pure speculation". If there was any hard evidence that this was a hoax I'd have speedy deleted it by now. Of course I'm speculating that it could be a hoax but I'd have thought you'd at least be able to recognise that there are a few elements of this that are concerning. Whilst DragonFire1024 mentions two sources, and more recently the Guardian article, he fails to note that they are all simply based upon the Jornal de Notícias article. None of them are able to provide any independent confirmation of the claims. DF says in his keep vote that we should "Also note that the Brazilian officials confirmed the messages were sent" but there is no also, the story is only based upon the comments on one individual which some are calling a "Brazilian official" but a Google search doesn't turn up much when you look for information about the individual which makes it less credible. There is simply this one person making this claim and to write an article based upon this isn't appropriate in my view considering we don't seem able to establish the notability of him.

I note that the Guardian article deals with this by way of a very brief mention, describing them as "unconfirmed reports". This is how we should be dealing with this also, rather than dedicating an article to the subject. Adambro (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Highly implausible that anyone has managed to send a SMS from the airplane at that distance and altitude from terrestrial mobile phone network (base stations). And currently Air France does not operate a mobile phone service on its transcontinental flights (the last trial they had ended in 2008). Unless these people had satellite phones (which are not allowed to be used in flight!) I doubt very much this news story is true ... (there are multiple possibilities: the report maybe genuine, but the people claiming they received SMS from their loved ones might have been delusional/lying etc.). As for deletion from Wikinews for now: any dubious news story based on only ONE original source should not be published until further reporting emerges (we are not professional journalists here, if Reuters or the BBC picks up this story, that would mean they would have checked its source throughoutly). --Ransu (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• After doing some more Googling, Ronaldo Jenkins appears to be associated with the association of airline organisaions known as SNEA - http://www.snea.com.br/ - Upon arriving at this page there is a clear link to a notice debunking the article - http://www.snea.com.br/noticias/not136.htm

  Pardon my portuguese but it seems they are saying their official Ronaldo Jenkins was not the source of this story, and as I said already above, they too consider it highly implausible for the passengers to have been able to send text messages from the airplane in the middle of the atlantic without some sort of satellite phones. Its hard to 'debunk' the story - but that should not be the criteria here - the source is a single source - therefore not worth a wikinews article. I suggest move to immediate deletion (you can make a new article if the story turns out to be true later!) - for now wikinews is in danger of being cited as a source of potentially false/hoax news story... --Ransu (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It mentions nothing of the sort of anything being false. In fact, the article clearly states it was "almost impossible" to send the messages. It does not say it didn't happen. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 14:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It does confirm though that the reports were just unconfirmed rumours without a reliable source. --194.105.255.161 (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The notice says more than it being "almost impossible" - it explicitly denies the source of the information. -- Rob.au (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop flogging a dead horse and delete the article already. You've got nothing but a SINGLE source whose report has been officially declared as FALSE by an official organization on their official website. The longer this goes on the more humiliating it is... --Ransu (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I will not be a party to misquotes. If you want to use the word false, or untrue or the likes, then find a source that uses that. Until then, saying its false is completely misleading. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 15:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you not getting this yet? Nothing supports the text message claim! The only source for the original story (and the only story) has been withdrawn. The theoretical technical possibility of text messaging from an airliner is completely besides the point. --194.105.255.161 (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

A paper reports that SNEA said something - and SNEA says they were not the source - isn't that kind of the definition of 'false'? Of course nobody can ever categorically prove that text messages weren't sent - but that's not the point - what we can prove is that SNEA has said that they were not the source - the paper reported FALSE information! - what's it gonna take to convince you? Are you suggesting SNEA are lying? ... i think some Portuguese tabloid is the suspect here... --Ransu (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually a different representative other than the one who made the initial claim said it was "almost impossible." And I don't know if this is a tabloid, and I am not about to make claims that it is. It is not our place to do so. I am not going to argue all day about this. If an alternate source can be found then by all means. But until then, the statement says what it says. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 15:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The point is that there is now no verified source for the article - we have verified that the source cited in the newspaper reports is false. That makes the Wikinews article unsustainable. -- Rob.au (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, stop using weasel words. Is the word false mentioned anywhere? No. Is the word untrue? No. Is the word hoax? No. It says 'almost impossible', which correct me if I am wrong, again, does NOT mean its NOT possible. And there are verified sources, 2. As mentioned in the article and here in the comments (RE The Guardian). So 3 if you count that. Again I will not be a party to weasel words. Say what it says, or don't use the source at all. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 15:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd ask you to stop accusing me of using weasel words. There are no verified sources. The two sources you are relying on are now verified as incorrect, so cannot be relied upon. The Guardian article is of no use to you because it openly states it wasn't able to verify the report. We quite literally have no validated source for this article. -- Rob.au (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well you don't seem to understand that the article quote the newspaper. Which is a source, and last I checked, still there. And there is no verification of it being incorrect. I mentioned above that there is nothing that says its false. I am not going to comment on this again, as I said what I needed to say. The SNEA statement says what it says (almost impossible), and that cannot be changed, no matter how much you or anyone wants it to. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You are compeltely misconsturing the SNEA statement. The two newspaper articles state that they were told by an SNEA representative that text messages existed. The SNEA has clearly and openly stated that did not say any such thing to the newspaper. They say the newspaper presented the idea to them and they dismissed it. So who saw the text messages? How can the newspaper articles be used? Please remember that being in a newspaper article is not sufficient to be a source. It has to be verifiable. Those articles fail the verification test. -- Rob.au (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Unindent. I don't know who saw the messages, and so far as I know no on knows. And what you are saying is basically if we cannot confirm everything in any source then its not verifiable which is totally ridiculous. That is like saying I use a Reuters source, but because I cannot track down a quote that someone said, example is exclusive article, then its not usable. Some papers, sites and etc use exclusive reports. I doubt highly, that three sources, including the Guardian would intentionally report false information. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The sources you are relying on say that the SNEA source had access to the relatives and confirmed the text messages existed. The SNEA statement says they didn't say any such thing to the newspaper, but rather the newspaper came to them and the SNEA dismissed the theory. This leaves us with no verifiable source that claims the messages existed and it now fails the required standard for inclusion here. -- Rob.au (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

DF, Google Translate says that the first paragraph says "Unlike what was disclosed by a Portuguese publication, not part of the technical director of SNEA, Ronaldo Jenkins, the information that the passengers of flight AF 447 Air France have sent messages to the cell when the family noticed problems with the aircraft." What do you think this all means? Adambro (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well here is something: “Some relatives and friends of victims have received that message, by phone, with phrases like ‘I love you’ or ‘I’m afraid’, and even telephone calls warning that something wrong was happening and feared the worst,” said the chairman of Union of Airline, Ronaldo Jenkins in Rio, according to Jornal de Noticias. [3]. According to this, they called their relatives. Maybe this was what he meant by the messages. Nonetheless I am still not convinced its not true. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Your point being? You've simply found another news article based upon the obviously flawed report by Jornal de Notícias. So? The question is not whether it is true that any passengers contacted anyone by any means, rather whether we can find any credible reports to support this. That isn't possible as it stands. Adambro (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

From what I see now, this guy was obviously not speaking on behalf of SNEA...people do that sometimes, but it doesn't mean they are wrong. Its like the recent events in Iran. They accuse the US of being behind their attacks. Now the US denies it, but are we going to step up and say for 100% that its not true? No. All we can report is so and so denies such claims That is exactly what we did here. So if this guy spoke on an unofficial capacity then there is nothing we can do about that. But again doesn't mean its not true. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I can accept your point. However, where the claims were already questionable and then this statement from SNEA comes along and rebuffs the newspaper's report, then there isn't a lot of solid information to go on in my view. It would be a very different story though if a number of different news agencies were running this story and had some independent verification and then SNEA produced a statement like this, perhaps to distance themselves from the comments of their employee, but that doesn't seem to me to be the case here. The weak information to support this article is further weakened by the SNEA statement. Adambro (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Other options

• CommentDo I waste my time here? This should not be deleted, but withdrawn, i.e. the page with a notice that the story was debunked. Thousands have read it, if they come back they should be duly informed it was wrong, not presented with the incredible vanishing news story. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've explained on the article's talk page why we should delete hoaxes rather than keeping them. It provides no benefits to do so but continues to highlight our error in publishing the article in the first place and so damages our credibility. Adambro (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

See my comment above. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

BRS, is there a procedure or policy for journalistic 'corrections' or 'withdrawals' on wikinews? For the moment this section has two choices: Keep or Delete - and unfortunately 'keep' implies maintaining some credibility for the story ... if the story turns out to be a clear hoax, a notable one especially - then we could have a valid news report about that - but having a news story - with no credible sources, is unacceptable ... I'm all for a 'third' option treatment, because as the internet media grows, so too does peoples hunger for immediate information - and places like wikinews, with no permanent professional journalists or editorial power, will have no means or even time to keep checking the stories that come floating around - there needs to be a criteria for a credible source - the number of them needed for verifiability - and a procedure for when things turn out like this: false or mistakes sources, or even withdrawal or admission by a source that the story isn't what it was reported to be. --Ransu (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The options here are not just keep/delete black and white. Many times an option will be to keep but take some other action. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That has been the procedure we used for the only completely false article I can think of - Ukranian manufacturer preparing to sell Adolf Hitler dolls. To clarify, 'keep' does not need to mean 'keep it and maintain it is accurate' it merely means 'don't delete'. I am indeed in favour of the third option, that of commenting the article is probably wrong but not deleting it. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Can I just point out that while I personally believe the SNEA, the mere fact they denounce does not make a hoax. What we can and should say is that SNEA denies giving the statement and gave the expert opinion that it is highly unlikely this is possible. We genrally cannot take sides except with the most extreme of viewpoints - so extreme that I can't actually think of any examples, except perhaps refering to convicted crimminals as such even when they maintain innocence. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

  For me the question is more along the lines of how widely reported the incorrect information was. As far as I can see, it did not spread very far at all. There are some isolated examples of mainstream English language media reporting it, but in doing so these have highlighted the lack of verification, so don't support inclusion here. By and large, most outlets simply didn't run the story. To me it therefore doesn't seem to be necessary to have it as a keep/retraction... it's simply a fairly isolated report that turned out to be wrong. Wikinews is a dynamic place - it jumped on board early... probably a bit too early but that happens - however it has turned out to be something with no verifiable source once we were able to verify it. In my mind, without wide coverage making it worthy of keeping as debunked, that means it just shouldn't be here... under WN:CG is doesn't appear to be news. I also note the line that says "To help guard against possible mistakes by news sources and to help establish a neutral point of view, editors are encouraged to find multiple sources on an issue, and fact-check those sources." Of course in this case we had just two sources, both quoting the one source, which then failed a fact check. What are people's thoughts with respect to that policy? -- Rob.au (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

  My thoughts on that policy are that it defines what the correction template was made for - we got it wrong, and we have a duty to explain to our readers what went wrong. How wide the report was doesn't matter. That we reported it does, that our readers read it, that matters. We cannot brush hoaxes/errors under the carpet. That removes accountability - something I thought we prided ourselves on. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

  The correction template says it should generally only be used on article at least a day old (suggesting the article should otherwise simply be "fixed")... this article isn't that old yet. I tend to prefer to discuss contentious issues with respect to policies, but I gather there just isn't on this topic. -- Rob.au (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

  I'm glad the focus seems to be moving towards how we handle this situation rather than users flogging the dead horse that is the argument that there is any credibility left in this story. I'd disagree with Blood Red Sandman's comments though. We're not been dishonest to our readers to delete this, rather we're not prolonging the damage to our credibility and more than has already happened. Anyone who knew about the article before it was deleted will be able to see in the deletion log why it was deleted and find these discussions if they are really bothered about it. I don't see how it benefits our readers to maintain these articles and deletion would seem to be inline with the {{hoax}} template and the speedy deletion criteria. Both of which will perhaps need amending if we aren't going to simply deleted hoaxes or similarly unverifiable articles. We shouldn't allow the reputation of Wikinews to continue to suffer due to the mistakes of a few users; the user who published this and anyone else involved in writing it. An article being published shouldn't be immune to dispute. Adambro (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You are utterly at odds with the opinion of BRS and myself as to what is honourable and respectable here. This has been up for the best part of a news cycle, you're proposing doing something I'd expect of The Sun or The News of the World. I.e. "Whopsie! One of our main first edition stories was bollocks!", "Just drop it and pretend it never happened". That's Dewey defeats Truman territory. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually this story, the Wikinews one, was picked up by a good deal of secondary sites. Just do a google search. So to say this article has not gone far is really not true. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And also, i am against, and will maintain that this is NOT a hoax. To use that word is ridiculous and misleading. I also find it hilarious that after all this, has anoyne even bothered to e-mail or call SNEA? I still maintain that the statement says what it says, "almost impossible". I don't understand how that can be any clearer. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sandman's comments above. I feel that it is our duty to tell our readers that the information that was presented to them was incorrect or false. Simply deleting it wouldn't do the trick, as not many people will guess to check the deletion log to see what happened to the article. Perhaps a proper course to take in this instance would be to blank the article of its previous content and simply replace it with a {{correction}} notice. That way, it is visible to readers that the article was inaccurate, and yet the actual content of the article will be hidden. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The only way I can accept DragonFire1024's last statement is that there's enough attribution to sources in the article to say "we reported on someone else's hoax/mistake". We have more than the duty to stop the perpetuation of the story as Adambro demands, we have a duty to correct the misapprehension many have left Wikinews with. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Whilst Brianmc calls my comments about this issue "demands", it is probably more accurate to describe them as suggestions as to what I think we should do. Brianmc seems to have a habit of using overly provocative terms to describe other users' comments.

I recognise that the consensus seems to be that we should keep this article. Whilst I obviously strongly disagree with this, we should now decide how exactly we are going to reformat it to recognise the complete lack of credibility of the story. I note that DragonFire1024 continues to focus on the last paragraph of the SNEA statement and has yet to actually consider what the first paragraph might mean. Adambro (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't demands? You decided what you thought should be done and continued to argue against a more nuanced solution? I don't call a spade a "metal earth moving implement", you formed it as a demand.

The questions to be answered now are, the text of the correction or hoax notice - including do we call it a correction, a hoax, what? (I don't have any favourite here, some detail on who the source reports claimed said something and the refutation is probably best). Do we keep the original article text, or - as I'd prefer - remove it and have a hard link to the last non-disputed version? Post-mortem actions are, where in policy, do we need a new template, &c. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

We probably shouldn't need to resort to yet another new template. {{correction}} should be made appropriate if it isn't yet. A "hoax" is an easy term to describe a false article but I suppose technically no one might have intend to spread misinformation, the story might simply be the product of crossed wires so perhaps we shouldn't call it a hoax. I too would like to see the article text removed even if we don't go to the extent I would like and delete the article but I'm not sure what non-disputed version you'd link back to. I raised my concerns with the article even before being made aware of the SNEA statement which seems to be the final nail in the coffin. Adambro (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to use the correction template, then removing text, any text is totally pointless. It would defeat the purpose of the template altogether. My issues is simple: The statement does not directly mention, according to what translations we can get, that this was false or untrue. Yes its very unlikely that the messages were sent, but it still doesn't mean it didn't happen, at least according to the statement. I agree that saying that this is a hoax would mean we discredit any and all sources, and basically are calling them liars and that they intentionally published totally false information. I do not think that is the case. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how using the correction template and removing text would be completely pointless. How it is worded doesn't stop us doing this whatsoever. You seem to again not make any real attempts to interpret the first paragraph of the SNEA statement. I'll happily admit to not understanding Portuguese but from the translations I've seen, my impression is that the first pargraphs says that despite the claims from the newspaper, their technical director didn't make the comments, and that the second states the position of SNEA that the organisation considers any such claims to be unlikely. Whilst I've said that it might not be appropriate to call this a hoax, to do so wouldn't be to brand any of the publishers liars, rather it would be to say that we think they have been misled which is completely different. Adambro (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No the statement didn't say He never said that. It merely doesn't back up what he said and says its highly unlikely. Lets be realistic: He said what he said, and I incredibly doubt that the agency would just pull a quote of thin air and make up something he didn't say. It doesn't make any sense. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought we had determined the agency did deny he said that, and that SNEA said the idea was brought to them and they flatly rejected it? Regardless, though, I think it worth noting on the article that the only expert opinion given is that it is highly unlikely. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:06, 2 June 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.

May 16

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

U.S. pork plant in Mexico near confirmed case of swine flu

I believe most people have probably seen this by now. Per comments on the talk, this fails NPOV by trying to lead readers to a conclusion not backed by the facts. It is also an old article which has been repeatedly date-bumped and sources added with little or nothing taken from them to game the system and prevent it being labelled stale. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 07:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment The argument being made that this leading/insinuation is appropriate is that lots of other news coverage has made an issue of this. Can someone cogently explain that not only is correlation not equal to causation, but that many journalists will make erroneous calls on things like this because it fits their agenda as opposed to being factually accurate. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 07:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Votes

• Remove as nom. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 07:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• Remove I too have seen this story and disliked its nature. Computerjoe (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• Remove (I had failed it at a review). Cirt (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Remove as it stands now it is both stale and in violation of NPOV. Nonetheless, the latest source that was added (this Time article) could form the basis of an interesting article about the lawsuit. --SVTCobra 22:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Remove Article is stale and doesn't meet WN:NPOV. It is too late now to try and rework the story, as it is so old. Tempodivalse [talk] 22:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Remove per all other reasons, and it was previously deleted. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• Remove per above. Calebrw (talk) 02:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• Remove the dots didn't connect when it was fresh, nothing significant has been added since. --Killing Vector (talk) 02:40, 23 May 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.

May 9

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

Category:Prom

Encyclopedic category that isn't very news-like; may not be appropriate for Wikinews. Tempodivalse [talk] 22:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Let me just say that I am new to Wikinews, so I was not really sure on the categorization methods here. My rationale for creating the category, however, was that many articles probably get written about crazy stuff that happens at high school proms, and categorizing it by that might be a good idea. If I was wrong, and that isn't how things are usually done, please go ahead and delete the category. NuclearWarfare (talk) 00:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Votes

• Remove as nom. Tempodivalse [talk] 22:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
• Remove just does not seem like an appropriate category, doesn't fit into any topic main cats. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 00:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
• Remove, per nom. If we already had 10 or so existing articles that could fit into the category, maybe (at least that has been the traditional line of thinking for categories in general) but this one seems more of an en.wikipedia sort of category than a en.wiknews one. Cirt (talk) 01:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
• Remove Too narrow. Prom in this sense is restricted to United States and Canada. This makes the category encyclopedic and ought be removed. If, however, Wikinews coverage of high school proms expands greatly in the future, this Cat can be recreated. --SVTCobra 01:36, 12 May 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.

May 8

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

Asbestos map of Eastern Australia published

This article was marked with cleanup tags [4], later marked by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) as abandoned [5], and then the primary article-writer went on to self-publish it without a {{review}} = [6]. Unfortunately this was not caught before the archiving process.

But the kicker is that the article discusses and uses promotional language promoting the work of a "Marc Hendrickx" - and the Wikinews article has as it sole contributor one Mhendrickx (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment This is a very unfortunate case. The user name suggests that the writer of the majority of the sources is the same as the writer of the Wikinews article, a major violation of WN:COI. On the other hand, it has been published for nearly a year. (Flagged revisions were not yet in force, so the lack of {{peer reviewed}} is to be expected.) I haven't had the time to delve deeper into this, but is there any false or spammish in this article? (at a glance there doesn't appear to be.) If not, perhaps we should let it stand. If there are real problems with the article's content, then we should replace the page with a retraction. I don't think we should just "break the archive" and delete it. --SVTCobra 00:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, certainly the wording, style, and presentation of the article is not NPOV. Note the beginning of the 5th and 6th paragraphs: "Mr Hendrickx...", "Mr Hendrickx's research...", and finally, the last paragraph sounds sorta promo, The article “Naturally occurring asbestos in eastern Australia: a review of geological occurrence, disturbance and mesothelioma risk” can be accessed online from Environmental Geology, a Springer publication. Note also originally there was one source cited [7], the other sources seem to have been slapped on as an afterthought to get around {{single source}}, which shows the whole article is itself based on this guy's article, and written by him about his article... Cirt (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That is rather like spam. Zapping this is tempting, but I know from experience there is usually great resistance when "breaking the archive" comes up. I'd like to see what other Wikinewsies think we should do, as I am undecided. Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh, well, you used the word "spam" first, not I. :P I don't think we should be in the business of encouraging or retaining spam material on the site. Cirt (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but as you say, the spam/promo stuff is in the last paragraph. The encouragement to read further in some other publication could be redacted without affecting the crux of the article. --SVTCobra 00:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I am rather undecided on this too. One one hand, the article is certainly newsworthy, and a bit of rephrasing should remove the promotional material without significantly affecting the article. On the other side, the article is a gross violation of WN:COI. If the promotional comments can be removed, I would lean towards keeping it. Before casting a vote, though, I think I'd like to hear what others have to say. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It is way too late to go around changing the text of the article itself in order to remove the promotional material, spam, self-promoting, and obvious conflict of interest. The best option at this point is deletion. Cirt (talk) 04:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I also note SVTCobra (talk · contribs) had brought up a problem with this article on its talk page back in June 2008, apparently that also went unaddressed [8]. Cirt (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment from Mhendrickx (talk · contribs)

This news item has been linked to by a number of users. deleting it now after such a long time would cause more trouble. If WIKINEWS can't get its act together and properly manage contributions then you are to blame. Don't inconvenience other user with these petty deletion requests. On top of it all the article is actually newsworthy. DO NOT DELETE IT.

This has now been online for nearly a year. The article has been cited elsewhere (www.bloggernews.net/117884). The article is newsworthy-people are actually interested in whether or not they live near an area of asbestos bearing rock. The article contains external references. I see no reason to delete it.

If WIKINEWS wants to encourage users to submit stories it should be a little more proactive in managing submissions as they are submitted and not after nearly a year. Retrospectively deleting news represents a somewhat Stalinesque attitude that is quite dangerous. What will you be deleting next. Obama's election win? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mhendrickx (talk • contribs)

Reply: The problem was started by the user that created this spam conflict of interest promotional piece that is an inappropriate usage of this project. Cirt (talk) 04:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply: The article is clearly not self promotional but as noted by SVTCobra it is "newsworthy". If judged newsworthy it should stand. The article has a basis in fact , it informs about an important scientific paper contains nothing false, and has been there for nearly a year. Therefore should stand unchanged. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mhendrickx (talk • contribs)

It "informs about a scientific paper" written by the author of the paper to promote the author of the paper, and is thus promotional and spam and an inappropriate usage of this website. If we allowed other authors to promote their works on this site in such a manner, being the sole contributor to the Wikinews articles about their works, and writing them in a promotional tone, this website would be nothing but a location for people to push out their spam. Cirt (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

does very little to promote th eauthor. It informs about a new study and promotes the subject and the associated paper. It could have been written in a much more self-promotional manner but wasn't. Considering the importance of maintaining the archive this is but a minor infraction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mhendrickx (talk • contribs)

Please sign your posts using:

~~~~

"The importance of maintaining the archive" is outweighed by the importance not to have this website be a repository and venue for individuals to spam. Cirt (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Also note, that this article was published almost a year ago. Self publish, at the time, was allowed. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"Self publish, at the time, was allowed.-DragonFire1024" So what is the problem? On the whole this is nothing more than a small Storm in a small tea cup. But if you must....webpage wikinews Asbestos bb COI error doubleplusungood rectify.. . All in all you have provided some inspiration to revisit Orwell's 1984. The past is alterable. The past has never been altered. Good luck playing with history guys.--Mhendrickx (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC) By the way there does not appear to be anything about COI on the criteria for deletion page[[9]]. Have you considered rule 1 on this? if in doubt don't delete. Why not rewrite? The past is alterable. The past has never been altered. --Mhendrickx (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid a rewrite of the article would most likely be impossible, as it would violate our archival policy, which basically states we can not make significant content changes to an article after it has been locked and archived. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Having looked through the deletion policy there does not seem to be grounds for deletion on this. COI is not listed. The article is hardly self promotion and it has been noted several times as newsworthy and linked to externally. Still I leave the past to be altered as you see fit.--Mhendrickx (talk) 00:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but there is also WN:COI, which essentially points out that using the project in this fashion is incompatible with the aims of Wikinews. Cirt (talk) 01:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

So to clarify: No grounds for deletion because COI is not listed as grounds for deletion, item is regarded as newsworthy, self publish was allowed at itme of submission and archive will be unduly compromised. No attempt was made to contact author prior to deletion request, no atempt has been made to change the article. No mention of COI made at time of writing. I think it is unfair to back date the rules on this and as such the article should stand as written. I am not sure how wikinews is policing articles at present but it does appear that the submission policy has changed since this article was written. If I had been aware at time of writing This would not have been submitted. I hope this is clarified for new users wishing to contribute to wikinews. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mhendrickx (talk • contribs)

At the time the article was published, Template:Review was called Template:Ready, but it clearly stated Please check if it complies with Wikinews policies and guidelines. As the article is a form of blatant self-promotional spam, the article at that time did not comply, and should have been marked as {{develop}}, as per the template's instructions at that time. Again, self-promotional spam is not the purpose of Wikinews. Cirt (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Most interesting that this SPA account, Mhendrickx (talk · contribs) has done nothing else during its time here on Wikinews since its first contribution to this project in June 2008 - save for writing a self-promotional spam article, and subsequently complaining about its possible deletion. Cirt (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment we're talking about the article namespace here - and an archived part of it. I feel under no circumstances should the page turn to a redlink. I believe it should be replaced with some sort of notice, I suggest delete and recreate as This page has been removed from Wikinews due to being self-reporting by the author of the source report and thus a clear violation of the project's conflict of interest policy. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

My first preference is deletion, but if consensus is not to delete, then I would not object to this proposal. Cirt (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is hardly self promotional and clearly is in line with the aims of the project "Welcome to Wikinews:The free news source you can write!" I reiterate based on comments above: Newsworthy, COI not grounds for deletion, self publish allowed, no mention of COI in initial reviews. Would accept comment on page that the article has been self reported.--Mhendrickx (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Repetitive single-purpose account is repetitive. Cirt (talk) 11:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that this "project" makes up rules as it goes along and decides to censor news based on an emotive response. I look forward to seeing how this Orwellian project develops over time. The concept of news by consensus is certainly an interesting one but seems to be a product of the times. Quite sad really...Still it has inspired a new novel. News of which, ironically, may one day make it news reported on wikinews --Mhendrickx (talk) 09:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Votes

• Remove, as nom. Cirt (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
• Remove, self-promotional. Lankiveil (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC).
• Keep, newsworthy, time on line-has been cited elsewhere —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mhendrickx (talk • contribs)
• reluctantly keep with a notice. I do not believe this should be deleted due to the newsworthy aspect. However, Mhendrickx, should he ever attempt a self-serving promotional stunt like this again, should be greeted with a lengthy ban. Wikinews is nobody's personal soapbox or PR machine. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

  The language used in the article reads almost like an advertisment. I don't think we should be retaining promotional material on the site, even if it has some element of newsworthiness and has been online for almost a year. I don't see how a correction notice would help matters much, if the text remains as-is. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Remove Was considering to vote neutral/abstain, but above arguments convinced me deletion is the correct course. If we could alter the article to remove the promotional stuff, then I would like to keep it, but unfortunately that violates WN:ARCHIVE policy, so there is really not much else to do other than delete. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• Remove. Mr. Hendri"ckx" wants us to get our house in order? Fine, we'll do that. Starting with deleting his article. Mike Halterman (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral Move and recreate with notice etc per brianmc. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
• Remove Violates WN:COI per above comments. Also, it violates WN:NPOV because no other scientific view is presented other than that of User:Mhendrickx, who won no friends with his arrogant comments about how he beat the system. However, since we will be breaking the archive, we will need a retraction notice in place of the article. It should not be forgotten that other websites mirror Wikinews in accordance with our license, such as Mister Info which has this article. --SVTCobra 14:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you think of the wording for the notice, suggested above [10] by Brianmc (talk · contribs) ? Cirt (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

We have a retraction notice on this article, Chinese submarine "embarrasses" U.S. Navy, so something similar might do. I believe Brian McNeil is talking about a warning to the reader, not a retraction, as he voted to keep. --SVTCobra 15:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the wording above by Brianmc:

I suggest delete and recreate as This page has been removed from Wikinews due to being self-reporting by the author of the source report and thus a clear violation of the project's conflict of interest policy. [11]

Cirt (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you meant way above. (Sorry I didn't click your link) Yes, that would do, too. --SVTCobra 21:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, good, agreed. Cirt (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Remove per nomination. Whilst we need to appreciate that policies and guidelines along with the general attitude of the community will evolve over time, it seems obvious that this article wouldn't have been accepted as appropriate had a proper discussion taken place. The conflict of opinion issues are overwhelming despite the newsworthiness. The fact that this article has been around for the length of time it has doesn't mean we shouldn't remove it since it reflects badly on the project. I can however accept that simply deleting the article might be unhelpful and so I would support the retraction approach as per Chinese submarine "embarrasses" U.S. Navy. Adambro (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
• Remove per nom. This is a major violation of COI that should never have slipped through the system. I would also accept a retraction. --Skenmy ^talk 16:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
• DELETE IT WITH FIRE --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 20:09, 12 May 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.

May 6

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

Category:Hilda Solis

I don't see why we need to have a category for every individual politician; this person is mentioned only in one article, is given a trivial mention in another, and appears in a list of names in the third. I'd like to note that no other member of Obama's cabinet has their own category here (for instance no Category:Timothy Geithner), so it doesn't seem appropriate to have this one. I don't think this category will receive much, if any, use. tempodivalse 23:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment It looks like consensus is strongly to keep, and having thought it over, I tend to agree with the below comments. I've withdrawn the DR and closed it. It would, however, be useful to have a guideline on this, to determine what level of notability one needs to have in order to have one's own category. tempodivalse 14:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Votes

• Remove as nominator. tempodivalse 23:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep people-cats are very much useful for news. Perhaps we should be adding Category:Timothy Geithner instead of deleting this. As far as the claim that "no other member of Obama's cabinet has their own category," we do have Category:Joe Biden and Category:Hillary Clinton. We are only a few months into this administration, Hilda may generate more news. --SVTCobra 01:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep for similar reasons to SVTCobra. -Brian McNeil / ^talk 07:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. We should however, make some kind of guideline on this one. There are many categories with only one article. We should either choose to make a category for every notable person that is mentioned in an article, or we should only have categories for those few that have a lot of articles. Currently there is no consistency. Van der Hoorn (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Major cabinet-level politicians should generally have their own categories. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  Just to note, you voted twice already. tempodivalse 14:33, 7 May 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.

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

Category:Waste

Encyclopedic category, no real use on a news site. Well-nigh impossible to go through archives and apply, highly unlikely to be consistently followed from this point forward. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 06:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Votes

• Remove as nom. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 06:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Remove Category:Environment is good enough to cover this. Also, usage of a Category:Waste can be very subjective. Britney Spears is a waste --SVTCobra 22:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... Think of all the CPUs the silicon in her implants could have made :-P--Brian McNeil / ^talk 07:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Remove Cobra sums it up nicely. Category:Environment can easily cover any articles on this topic. tempodivalse 22:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Remove Agree. Van der Hoorn (talk) 11:38, 7 May 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.

April 21

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:Water cooler/fromsitenotice

Removed, since nobody raised any objections, and it doesn't look like this serves any function any more. tempodivalse 17:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy requested, declined by me. It doesn't look like this serves any function, but apparently it used to be linked from mediawiki:anonnotice. Just wanted to check that this really is useless before removing it. tempodivalse 21:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment See also my talk page for a discussion on this template. Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk) 09:07, 22 April 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.

April 15

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 Bawolff

All templates in Category:Subtemplates of Template Convert and all templates in Category:Subtemplates of Template Rnd

I tried to copy the infamous Wikipedia Convert template to Wikinews. However, the template just has too many subtemplates (over a 1000) and it is really cumbersome to make it work on Wikinews + keep track of all the changes. Thus, I copied only templates based on our needs (see Category:Conversion templates for the ones which are currently usable). Therefore I recommend that we delete the subtemplates of convert and rnd (including rnd itself) that are currently present (both are incomplete). I already redirected the Convert template itself to the before mentioned category, so that users will use those templates instead. Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Votes

• Remove per nom. Van der Hoorn (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Remove not sure what happened here, but seems reasonable to delete. --SVTCobra 02:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment this could be speedied. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:39, 18 April 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.

April 13

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.

File:YouTube.gif

Links are being phased out and replaced by an .svg version of the image (see File:YouTube logo.svg). Once the transition is complete, the file can be deleted. Cflm001 (talk) 09:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Consensus was to delete. tempodivalse 01:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment I need someone to replace the link to this image on Template:YouTube. Cflm001 (talk) 09:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I think I fixed all other instances. Please check again before really deleting the image. Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Votes

• Remove as nominator. Cflm001 (talk) 09:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
• Remove if, and only if, there are no more links to the gif file (except for this page of course). Otherwise Keep. Van der Hoorn (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
• Remove --SVTCobra 02:12, 18 April 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.

April 11

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.

Portal:Football/Coca-Cola Football League

Speedy was requested, declined by me. I don't know, perhaps this has some function, so decided to list this here instead of zapping it. tempodivalse 19:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Consensus was to delete. tempodivalse 01:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Votes

• Remove Unused uncategorized portal; many redlinks (i.e. non-existing templates). Also didn't have an update for a long time. Van der Hoorn (talk) 20:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• Remove --SVTCobra 02:12, 18 April 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.

April 6

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:Sosueme

Unused template, can't image a situation where this would be useful. Could be moved to userspace instead. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 20:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The consensus was to delete and userify. The template has been moved to User:Brianmc/Sosueme and the redirect suppressed. tempodivalse 02:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment I haven't used this because I didn't know it existed. :-P --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That's funny, because you created it. --SVTCobra 10:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Just call me Al, Al-Zheimer. ;-) --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Votes

• Move to userspace and fix the link in the archive. Then Remove it. Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Remove --SVTCobra 10:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral I could imagine situations where this would be useful (and it made me laugh). Bawolff ☺☻ 04:24, 14 April 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.

April 5

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:UCL current draw

Unused old template (2007). Van der Hoorn (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Votes

• Remove per nom. Van der Hoorn (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Remove Not currently serving any function, can't see how this can ever be useful. ♪ Tempodivalse ♪ 16:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Remove per nom, no potential for use. I note that as early as December 2007 this was being talked about for deletion. Adambro (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Remove --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Remove Jacroe (talk) 14:25, 8 April 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.