Wikinews:Deletion requests/Archives/2009/Q3

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 Juliancolton

[edit] Template:Citation

An encyclopedic template that has been beaten with the ugly stick. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

• Forgive me, but wasn't there a plan to use this to produce 'hidden' citations, either to help reviewers with long articles or to help show them which details they are trying to pick out from long sources. They were to be hidden from regular users, but those who had it enabled could toggle them on and off. Isn't that what this is for? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 06:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

eh, no. Such an idea may have been proposed but if you look at the history you will see the user who created this has nothing to do with that. This was solely to cite some stuff to say "homeopathy is widely regarded by the medical community as quackery". Use of this template in the article in question looked bloody awful, and most of the sources they wanted to cite are locked away behind paywalls. Thus, they got removed and the remaining link on that article was reformatted to look less like someone had vomited into the page source. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 07:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

• Remove as nom. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• Remove, looks like a WP-style book source template - not likely to be ever used here. Tempodivalse [talk] 03:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Remove not linked to any system we use per Brian. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Agreed, Remove. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Remove If/when deleted, the use at Parents prosecuted after homeopathic treatment leads to daughter's death should be replace with another type. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:28, 3 October 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 both. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Tempodivalse

[edit] Category:Water and Portal:Water

This is an rather encyclopedic category that I don't think is suitable for a news site - and it has gotten almost no use in the past four years. As such, I suggest it be removed. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

[edit] Votes

• Remove as nominator. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
• Remove Seems fair enough    Tris   21:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep the category, but no opinion on the portal. The category seems valid, and can be populated with a few hundred articles. 69.121.245.182 (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
• Remove Encyclopedic categories need to die. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 07:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep category, Remove portal. Ali Rana (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Remove but if the category is kept it needs to be cleaned up; it is a mess. --SVTCobra 01:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• Remove Potal for sure, and less strongly the category. I doubt folk will find it useful to find other stories about water when they arrive at one. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:25, 3 October 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. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Cirt

[edit] Category:Cyclone

Entirely redundant to both Category:Weather and Category:Hurricane. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

• Can an admin close this? It's been well over 1 month. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

• Keep Although a w:cyclone and w:hurricane are basically the same thing, I feel we should have separate categories for them, to be used depending on which way it is referred to in an article. Tempodivalse [talk] 02:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Changed vote to Remove, convinced by the below comments by user:Juliancolton. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Here at Wikinews, the term "hurricane" traditionally refers to all tropical cyclones, which is why Cat:Cyclone is redundant. If this category is kept, we'd need to create Category:Tropical depression, Category:Tropical storm, Category:Typhoon, Category:Deep depression, Category:Cyclonic storm, Category:Severe cyclonic storm, Category:Very severe cyclonic storm, Category:Severe tropical storm, Category:Very intense tropical storm, Category:Intense tropical storm, Category:Severe tropical storm, Category:Moderate tropical storm, etc. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Remove I think an explanatory note on the hurricane category that all these various storms are included should be enough. Julian, to defer to your knowledge of this issue, is 'hurricane' a sufficient description for all these storms, or is there a better collective term? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Technically, the term "hurricane" refers only to tropical cyclones with winds of over 74 mph in the Eastern Pacific and Northern Atlantic oceans. However, more commonly, it is used to encompass all tropical cyclones in all ocean basins. Using excessive technicalities and jargon when discussing meteorology leads to unnecessary confusion, so while "tropical cyclone" would certainly be a more accurate term, it would also be unnecessarily complex for the general public. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, a "hurricane" is a tropical cyclone in the Eastern Pacific or Atlantic oceans, while it's called a "typhoon" or "cyclone" when it occurs in Asia (see wikt:hurricane, wikt:typhoon and wikt:cyclone). That's why I feel we should have separate categories for them - because both terms do not necessarily refer to the exact same thing. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That's correct, but hurricanes, typhoons, and cyclones are the exact same thing, just with different names. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

After thinking it over a bit, I tend to agree with you. I guess that they don't differ enough to warrant separate categories, and the most commonly used term world-wide for the storm is "hurricane". I think that there should be a note on the category page though, noting that it covers all of those various storms. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that "tropical cyclone" is too complex for the general public, but hurricane is not? That would probably be true if you call a tropical cyclone a hurricane, but not true if you would call it a cyclone/typhoon. Maybe _you_ find hurricane not so complex, but if you live in Asia then you may never use the term. I suggest renaming the whole thing to "tropical cyclone" or make both "hurricane" and "cyclone" a subcategory of "tropical cyclone". If this solution is not sufficient, then I'll vote for Keep.

• Would Tropical Storm work perhaps. Well we're on the subject, I'm of the opinion that our category:Hurricane Season, some year categories should be unified into just category:Hurricanes. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• The issue there is that the term "tropical storm" isn't as well-known as "hurricane", and it's best to keep things simple and accessible. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete — With one caveat and one additional issue. Caveat: I agree with Tempo that the Hurricane cat should make sure to list the terms Tropical Storm, Typhoon, and Cyclone (which can refer to a tornado too in some places, actually:P) as synonyms of the word. Additional issue: I agree with Bawolff that there is no need for by-year listing of hurricanes. It just obstificates the category process, as I recently found out while doing a wackload of editprotected requests related to incorrect categorizing of hurricane seasons in many, many articles. A single hurricane category would be better. Gopher65_talk 16:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment cyclone seems to be the overall term which describes hurricanes, typhoons and other storm patterns. I wonder if we — instead of deleting Category:Cyclone — should be renaming Category:Hurricane. I agree with other comments that we should only have one category for these weather patterns. --SVTCobra 00:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

  The problem here - and the cause of my initial hesitation to support deletion - is that there is no standard, internationalised way to refer to the storm. For those living in the Americas or England, the term used is "hurricane", elsewhere in the world it is referred to as a "typhoon" or "cyclone". Which one to use? I'm under the impression that "hurricane" is used more frequently, but perhaps we should instead consider using Category:Tropical cyclone since that's the scientific term for all three storms (although the only problem might be that it's too confusing for the average reader, as Julian says above). Tempodivalse [talk] 00:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I get the point, but the storms that apply to the UK and North America are Atlantic Hurricanes. But as this is English Wikinews, we must consider that those are not the only English-speaking areas. What do they call these storms in Australia, for example? If they call them "hurricanes" and not "cyclones" or "typhoons", then we are closer to justifying the less-scientific term. Do we have anyone left from our once-vibrant community down-under to weigh in on this? --SVTCobra 00:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

In Australia, the Indian Ocean, the South Pacific, and the South Atlantic, tropical cyclones are referred to simply as "cyclones"; in the Western North Pacific, they are referred to as "typhoons"; and in the Eastern North Pacific and Northern Atlantic, "hurricanes". So "tropical cyclones" would be the only name that applies to systems in all basins, but again, "hurricane" is the most common name. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:08, 9 September 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 Keep. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Tempodivalse

[edit] Wikinews:Story preparation/Jimmy Wales dies

Way too soon... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

[edit] Votes

• Move to Wikinewsie This is actually a perfect example of something that probably should be on Wikinewsie Wiki instead. Why not move it there and keep it around. While all Journalism groups write obits long in advanced, most of them keep it underwraps because they don't want to look...morbid. We probably should consider doing the same. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 06:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep This is a prepared story, there is currently no consensus to move obits off the public wiki and all prepared obits should be handled the same way. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Prepared obits should be made. I would oppose a move to Wikinewsie on the same basis as made in previous discussions, which is that it would lock the vast majority of contributors out. That said, there is a case for moving it there so feel free to bring that up again. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• But why Jimbo? There's no indication whatsoever that he is going to face death within the next 10, 20, 30 years. Just seems a bit off to me.
• Also, we have to worry about potential misinformation. I found a link to this page via IRC, and another user asked "Did he really die?". –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Jimbo because someone wanted to write about Jimbo. Also, if people can't read then that's their problem. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep There's nothing wrong with having prepared obits on notable people - the {{prepared}} clearly indicates the story is wrong, and the page will get virtually zero outside traffic anyway because of the _noindex_. Also, I would oppose moving the obituaries to Wikinewsie as that would prevent most editors from contributing to them. Tempodivalse [talk] 13:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. GreenReaper (talk) 02:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, this is precisely what the purpose of the prepared obits on wiki system is for. I would also oppose moving this sort of thing to another site. Cirt (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Remove along with the other small ones I think we should look at the prepared obits because most of them, like this, are so small that they serve no purpose at all. A prepared obituary should surely contain many details of their life so that we can get it out as quickly as possible in the event of their death. I don't think just Wales' should be deleted, but many of the others as well, or be expanded.    Tris   20:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: This rationale is actually a good argument for keeping and expanding planned obit pages. Cirt (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Yep agreed; but my remove vote is if they're not going to be expanded-which they haven't been so far!    Tris   10:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Response: Actually, that is incorrect - please note that the recent obituary article Senator Ted Kennedy dies at age 77, actually started out as a prepared obit, and was successfully expanded upon into a live article. Cirt (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Response: Yes I see that, but it wasn't really very long-would only take a few minutes to make that much anyway. I bet my bottom dollar that big news organisations' obituaries are pretty much ready & just need a few details added in-they would be much more comprehensive than they are currently. I think all of them should be seriously expanded-if everyone could take one, & using info from the Wikipedia article & other sources, then make them decent so that at least they are a decent obituary for the person just died.    Tris   16:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per all (relevant) arguments above. Van der Hoorn (talk • contribs) 10:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Remove as Wikinews:Story preparation/Obituaries says, the prepared obituaries are for:

An obituary should be written if a prominent or notable person has any of the following dilemma:

• The person is old enough to be able to die of age at any time.
• The person has an illness/sickness/handicap that might take the persons live at any time.
• The person is highly probable to be murdered/killed by a third party or external event at any time.

None of these seem to apply to Jimbo at present.

Secondly, the prepared story is near useless in that it won't save anyone any time in writing an obit. --SVTCobra 00:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well-said. This is basically what I was getting at. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:09, 9 September 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 Deleted, consensus is clear. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Tempodivalse

[edit] Category:Wikimania 2009

The 2009 Wikimania is long over now. This category only has two articles in it, and as it's rather unlikely we will ever be able to populate it with any more at this point, I suggest it be deleted. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

[edit] Votes

• Remove as nom. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Remove, a bit too specific. Cirt (talk) 03:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• Remove --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Remove Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:45, 6 September 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 Deleted. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by ShakataGaNai

[edit] Template:Wikimania 2009

Now that the 2009 WM is long over, it is unlikely any articles will be written on this very specific topic, and the template is currently not used anywhere. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

[edit] Votes

• Remove as nom. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• Remove --Brian McNeil / ^talk 01:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• Remove –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:17, 31 August 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 Deleted. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Tempodivalse

[edit] Wikinews:Deleted article notice

Apparently, this was supposed to be used as a place to redirect articles that were copyvios. Since the common practise is now to delete copyvios wholesale, this has no purpose any longer. (It doesn't seem to have ever been used, as only one article redirects there). Tempodivalse [talk] 01:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

[edit] Votes

• Remove as nom. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Remove and the redirects that point to it should be deleted as well. (eg. Channel Seven Looses Controll Of Audio). --SVTCobra 02:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Remove --Jcart1534 (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Remove Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:34, 16 August 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 speedied by SVTCobra - prep for event two years ago. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by SVTCobra

[edit] Wikinews:Story preparation/YoungTubersUnited

This seems to have been an intended interview about an event which is now years old. It looks to be pretty much useless at this point. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

[edit] Votes

• Remove as nom. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:48, 15 August 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 all listed pages. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Tempodivalse

[edit] August 13, 2009

[edit] Portal:User en, Portal:User en-1, Portal:User en-2, Portal:User en-3, Portal:User en-4, Portal:User en-5, Portal:User en-N

I don't think these portals are needed. They serve the same function as user categories, with no added benefits, so they are rather redundant. Also, as they use dpls, the limit on the maximum number of pages a DPL can list could become problematic as our user base grows. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

[edit] Votes

• Remove as nom. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Remove portals should avoid jargon names and actually be useful. These don't seem to be either. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Remove Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Remove --SVTCobra 09:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Remove --Jcart1534 (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Remove, although I don't think DPL maximum is going to be a problem. Van der Hoorn (talk) 00:09, 16 August 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 all listed pages. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Tempodivalse

[edit] Template:Pakistan-province-category, Portal:Balochistan (Pakistan), Portal:North-West Frontier Province, Portal:Sindh, Category:Wikinews Pakistan, and Portal:ISI

Per discussion here. Remove the template, design a more generic regional template that does not rely on portals that will list a tiny number of articles. Remove portals that cannot usefully subdivide news into topical categories and populate four or five of those with several articles. Remove Wikinews Pakistan category as an internal category, or remove from Pakistan category where it misleadingly indicates it may contain news items. Remove portal ISI, complimentary category was deleted in renaming to match Wikipedia and has insufficient articles to justify a portal. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

• Please refer to the longer and open-ended discussion on the Water Cooler. While any wiki is technically a work in progress these pages reflect poorly on Wikinews by really highlighting this issue. I believe they should be deleted and a more comprehensive approach to the problems reached. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

• Remove as nom.--Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Remove Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Remove all listed pages. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Category:Wikinews Pakistan, Remove others as per nom. Ali Rana (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Why keep Wikinews Pakistan? What purpose does it serve? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Remove pages listed in nom. Cirt (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Remove all. I am guessing that Ali Rana wants to keep Category:Wikinews Pakistan because it is like Category:Wikinews Canada. However, I don't know of any Wikinews Bureau (including Wikinews:WikiBureau Canada) that is active. I believe they could all be deleted or tagged {{historic}}. We should not use these remnants as a reason to create Categories, Portals, and Bureaus for regions that simply do not have the user-base to support them. Rather, we should eliminate the excess. --SVTCobra 03:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Remove --Jcart1534 (talk) 03:22, 15 August 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 Category:Azad Kashmir kept as no consensus, Portal:Azad Kashmir deleted. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Tempodivalse

[edit] August 11, 2009

[edit] Category:Azad Kashmir and Portal:Azad Kashmir

Both completely unused. Searching finds only one article that mentions the area at all. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

• Remove Agree with nom; both portal and category are practically unused. If, however, our coverage of the area increases later, we can easily recreate the cat. Tempodivalse [talk] 12:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• Remove the portal, Keep the category. Gopher65_talk 13:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• Remove Portal, Keep category. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Remove. Personally, I'd prefer a category for the Kashmir region as a whole, instead of separate ones for the parts that are India and Pakistan. I see this as similar to the Category:Middle East which straddles Africa and Asia. --SVTCobra 03:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Remove As per Tempodivalse, can recreate later if necessary with new naming system (per BRS). --Jcart1534 (talk) 03:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Remove portal; Keep category. Van der Hoorn (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

That search conducted by BRS just confirms my point below. Every story mentioning Kashmir tensions between India and Pakistan could legitimately have this cat. So could every cross-border terrorist story, every story about Pakistani terrorist training camps, and every story about Indian military/police killing Muslims and forcing them to retreat into Pakistan. I'm sure that there are other possibilities that I can't think of. It's not that there aren't articles to fill this category, it's a question of 1) How do we find the old articles, and 2) How do we make sure that cats get used in appropriate articles in the future? (Maybe some sort of better cat sorting system... or something.) Gopher65_talk 13:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

See my reponse below... Midway through writing it I thought of an added an idea for moving the category system forward. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment I withdraw my nom of the category per the new subcat system we are working towards. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:08, 12 August 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 deleted as abandoned by Killing Vector. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by SVTCobra

[edit] Girl_in_swimming_pool_pulled_out_unconsious

Scrapping the bottom of the barrel at best. I don't believe this is newsworthy. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Comment This should have been left for WN:PROD, where it seemed to have been headed for lack of sources. We cannot hold DRs for every submission that is single-sourced, non-sourced, and/or fails to meet basic style requirements. PROD is the way they go, which may or may not include {{abandoned}} after a couple of days. --SVTCobra 23:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

• Keep Well I agree its not the most news worthy thing in the world, and that it needs more work before it is up to the standard needed to be published, I am of the opinion that it is news worthy enough. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps, but it seems extremely localized, and I don't see anything particularly noteworthy about it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Also, it's a direct copyvio of the source listed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you about that sort of -- it's been paraphrased badly but there's still been an effort to paraphrase. I'm more inclined to say the author needs instruction; knee-jerk deletion would be counter to that. --Killing Vector (talk) 02:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• sorry for all the confusion. --NewsPelican66 (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep -- doesn't satisfy requirements for deletion above and beyond the usual unsourced articles. Give the author a chance to improve it. --Killing Vector (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep It's a very local story, but I think it meets the content guide and newsworthiness guidelines. However, it needs quite a bit of work and cleanup before it can be published. Tempodivalse [talk] 18:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep More genuine news than a lot of stuff that comes in. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Not so long ago we actively encouraged people to write local news, and so long as we don't drown in it that's cool by me. I like the idea that two cars crunching each other's headlights down the road goes alongside the latest world trade agreement. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep It's local news! --Skenmy ^talk 20:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't understand. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of people go unconscious every day. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Remove It's too localized to wind up on here, so you can leave it to your local news sources. ConCompS (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Local news is within the scope of Wikinews. --SVTCobra 03:26, 12 August 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. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Cirt

[edit] Category:Fuckups

Redirects to category:Disasters and accidents. I don't think this is a legitimate redirect; it is a very unlikely search term, not to mention unprofessional. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

• Remove as nominator. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Remove Although I am not beyond seeing the humourous intent, we should keep it out of the namespaces aimed at the public - pretty much all except user. This is the sort of thing that can harm the reputation of Wikinews. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Remove I think speedy would be appropriate here. --Jcart1534 (talk) 18:32, 8 August 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 result. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Cirt

[edit] Template:Dynamic South Asia

This is not a recognised region as shown in our sidebar. The template is not used anywhere, nor is there anywhere that it can be used. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

[edit] Votes

• Remove as nom.--Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Remove Pretty much useless, methinks. This is a Wikipedia-style geographical template and we don't really use them here. Tempodivalse [talk] 10:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Remove Also Remove Template:South Asia, as that template uses this one. Van der Hoorn (talk) 12:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Remove per nom. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Remove We do not need to have such templates; the regions we have suffice perfectly well. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:54, 8 August 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 Category:Quetta deleted, Category:Rawalpindi kept as no-consensus. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request.

[edit] Category:Quetta Category:Rawalpindi

Detail category with no articles, not for a capital city, extremely unlikely to be well maintained. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 07:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Comment— Have you noticed that every story has the same 5 categories on it? How exactly are those categories useful for searching about a specific topic if every blooming story has those cats? It's ridiculous. If we're going to use categories in this way (broad cats with no subcats), then we might as well not use the category system at all, because it is currently useless.

This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we never bother to create these sub-categories, then of course no one will ever use them. If the cats are created and we delete them before they can be used in the minimum number of stories required, then they will never achieve the "minimum requirements for existence", whatever those are. This is an unfortunate consequence of the (retarded) way that wikimedia category system currently works, and it's compounded by our actions here at wikinews.Gopher65_talk 07:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That is insane. Are you really saying people won't write news on a subject because there isn't a category for it? Once there are a few stories a category pops up. It makes sense to me. Also, are you really saying that the broad cats are of no use? People don't want news on their home country or continent, or a neighbouring country, or one they visit every year, or one... etc.? I look forward to the day when we have enough stories about more or less every city anywhere to have a cat for each. I really do. Until then, though, we must grow to match what's needed. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 09:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Broad categories *are* mostly useless. There are a few useful ones like the country cats, but other than that, they're pointless. If you're looking for a story about space shuttles, are you really going to bother to search through 3000 {{Science and technology}} articles? Of course not. And that problem will only grow as the number of articles grows. The purpose of sub-cats of greater specificity is that they allow the reader to easily search for articles on specific topics, rather than on topics too broad to be meaningful. Gopher65_talk 13:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

My issues with not creating cats is that many articles don't necessarily have the name of the cat in them. How do you google search for articles to put into a regional cat after the fact (more on that in my comment below)? It can't be done, except by manually examining article that has any possibility of needing that cat. And no one will ever do that:P. So if we don't create the cats as they are needed, and let them sit with only one article in them until such a time as more are added, then we'll end up with a large(r) number of orphaned articles that don't have the appropriate cats on them. Gopher65_talk 13:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as Science and Technology etc. goes it's reasonable to assume someone reading such an article might be intereted in other S&T articles. It's not for seeking specifics when it gets that broad - it's for browsing. Plus, they are useful for DPLs. Remember, the latest articles in the cat are displayed at the top for a high-popuation cat. As to regional cats, I'll reply to that below. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: Please do not subst the {{remove}}, {{keep}}, or {{comment}} templates.

Yes, there is a fairly narrow scope of regularly used categories - this is far from useless. It might not be particularly helpful on Wikipedia, but with dates also being categories and us using DPL, then this is very useful, and important to the good running of the site.

I personally have created a large number of categories, such as those for many politicians. A task such as that is not too difficult when using AWB to search for relevant articles, but progressively smaller geographic divisions are more problematic. Given the extent of the current archive I do not think categories should be created where there are less than three-five published articles. I certainly think that the associated Portal pages should not be created until there are significantly more articles.

Given that, my biggest concern is that many such categories will be very irregularly maintained. An article can belong in a region category but nobody outside the area can tell - you can't always search with Google for category candidates. This will change if we get wider participation. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 11:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

IIRC portals are largely manually maintained. Assuming that is true, I oppose the creation of any but the most broad portals until our userbase is huge. But categories require no maintenance. Once they're created they just sit on the cat list waiting for someone to use them. Even unused cats should be of no concern to us unless they are plainly stupid cats. For things like politicians you can add cats after the fact, since their names are always in articles mentioning them (searching is easy). But what about cities or regions? An article about NASA doing a launch from w:Cape Canaveral should have Category:Florida on it, but it is darned hard to add it after the fact, since the word "Florida" will most probably not appear in the article itself.

Once the cats are created, the eventual creation of portals (should we ever choose to create a portal on the subject in question) becomes easier, due to the easier searching of related articles. Gopher65_talk 13:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The regional cat problem will have some examples like the Cape Canaveral one, which is an issue, but mostly that's a pretty sound argument against regional cats. Wikinews is international and so international contributors should be able to work out if a cat is relevant or not. See my suburb comment below as an stupidly extreme example in order to clearly (I hope) illustrate the point. If I write about, say, a city in Turkmenistan you'll understand that there won't be anyone who knows enough about the nation's regions to help out. The result would be unmaintainable cats. On Wikipedia it works because everything is always there and built up over time, but here most articles are already ancient history by the time they get archived, and most rarely see any more edits. We can't expect people to gradually keep refining things until it is exactly categorised into every region.

What might be a good idea, though, for some of the more popular countries, is to draw up lists of what cities/big towns are in what county/province/whatever. That way categories on some regions could be created and maintained. I would also like Wikinews to have the ability to search only for articles in (a) certain category/ies to allow the big ones to be more useful, as well as the ability to search only for articles not in (a) certain category/ies to allow for easier categorisation in this way. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I know this isn't quite what you meant, but we do have this: Category:Category. I would like to see an easy system for locating cats to put on an article. Especially regional/city cats, which I normally have difficulty finding. Gopher65_talk 14:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a proper consensus regarding the rulings on creating categories. As a lot of users above me mentioned, creating regional categories is useful because in the long-run, we're hopefully going to have more and more news articles about the designated location. This is a perspective that Wikinews admins should consider and take into account. Proper regional categories should be kept if they meet minimum requirements, which is what I am trying to do. Also have a look at this category for example: Category:Baghdad. Currently, it has only 2 articles though I am 99% there are more articles and that the few categorised articles are a result of failed supervision. Ali Rana (talk) 01:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, good catch! I'll go and populate it. Yes, that's exactly the problem I'm hoping to help resolve. Damn, this would be so easier with a search that excluded certain cats! Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 09:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

• Remove as nom.--Brian McNeil / ^talk 07:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Remove Agree with nominator; this category is unlikely to be used. If, however, we have significant coverage of these topics in the future, then we can certainly recreate the cats then. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Remove agreed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep — I disagree. This was the city where Rawalpindi is where Benazir Bhutto was assassinated, so it has at least some news notoriety. We already have several stories that are suitable for this cat (and they've now been added to it). (EDIT: I feel the same way about the Quetta Category, but not as strongly.) Gopher65_talk 02:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep — Agree - Rawalpindi is notable enough. Category also has three articles, and hence satisfies to meet the minimum requirement. Ali Rana (talk) 08:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Remove Quetta as certainly not containing enough articles. Ali, it is not about notability but about a combination of if there are enough articles, if it is likely to be useful to people (i.e. would anyone ever want to view news on this topic - in most cases, that one's yes) and are contributors likely to realise that an article is relevant to the category (so even if there are fifty articles relating to some suburb, the exact suburb may not appear in news reports, so that would not be okay, but a town or a city would). As to the number of articles required... there is no real agreement. I'd say five sounds good. Some - you, for an obvious example - would say three, and I'm sure other people with different numbers can be produced. Accordingly, I abstain from comment on Rawalpindi without prejudice if a standard is agreed upon. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Remove Quetta Keep Rawalpindi. --SVTCobra 03:31, 12 August 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 remove - morons were trying to spam Wikipedia (see mailing list). User account also blocked as singler purpose. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Brian McNeil

[edit] User:Kerosene Band Dubai

This is a shameless piece of advertising, listing here rather than speedying as it's in user space. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

[edit] Votes

• Remove as nom.--Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Remove - if there was any evidence that this was a real user that contributes, some of it might be ok as a "this is my hobby" section. This, however, is purely band promotion, though I haven't the foggiest idea what booking agent they hope to reach with a wikinews user page. --SVTCobra 22:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Remove could have been speedyed, not really user space appropriate, no contribs, its an ad. --Cspurrier (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Remove Van der Hoorn (talk) 11:40, 29 July 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 remove. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Brian McNeil

[edit] Category:Ridgefield, New Jersey, Category:Secaucus, New Jersey, Category:Hoboken, New Jersey and Category:Brooklyn

Ultra-local categories, only one story in it. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

[edit] Votes

• Remove--Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Remove Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Remove --SVTCobra 00:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Remove Van der Hoorn (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Remove –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:10, 27 July 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 remove IP editorials, leave rest. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Brian McNeil

[edit] Ancient editorials

Some old editorials from years back that were shunted into userspace. Of no use to us and no sign the user's involved want them there. These should really have stayed mainspace and been deleted. Nominated are: User:64.26.98.74/Like It Or Not Israel Must Deal With Hamas Now, User:201.121.204.58/Saving the Bay of La Paz & Gulf of California, User:147.126.46.147/The Russian Threat?, User:Artpoetryfiction/Vietnam Passes New Intellectual Property Law, User:Chopbrown/Iran and Nuclear Proliferation: Narrow Interests or Common Good?, User:Fredericknoronha/Understanding language politics in Goa, India, User:Free them/Revealing gender wealth gap in the United States, User:JorgeReyes/A Photo Journey through the Heart and Soul of Cuba, User:Kisaac/New Middle East - At Harmony, User:Kabir/Freedom Figting-The Baloochistan Way, User:Paulrevere2005/Afghanistan opium production keeps skyrocketing while the administration says and User:Universalblogger/One new idea that could kill google.

[edit] Votes

• Remove as nom Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• I'm not really sure it is bad that these editorials are lingering around in user space. I'm still a bit in doubt whether to keep them or not. Maybe we should look on a case by case basis. For now, I'll vote for Keep, but you may be able to convince me to change my vote. Van der Hoorn (talk) 10:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Remove those which are on IP address subpages. Keep the rest. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Remove Clearly for the IP address subpages. As for the others I'll have say Neutral for now. --SVTCobra 22:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• I agree. Delete the IP address subpages (I don't feel that it is appropriate for an IP to have a subpage, given that many of them are dynamic IP used by multiple people over time), and save the non-IP ones. No reason to delete those unless there is an individual reason to do so for each one of them. Gopher65_talk 19:08, 4 August 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 remove. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Van der Hoorn

[edit] Batch of low-use event cats

I am nominating the following categories: Category:2006 European Championships in Athletics, Category:2007 Taipei International Travel Fair, Category:2008 Creative Taiwan, Category:2008 Leisure Taiwan and Category:2008 Motorcycle Taiwan. All of these are populated by just a couple of articles - too few to justify a category - and as they cover past events there is no hope for any more. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

• Remove as nom Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Remove --James Pain (talk) 12:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Remove --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Remove Moved some of the articles in the categories one category 'up', so they are still adequately categorized. Van der Hoorn (talk) 09:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Remove considering the majority of these are now empty and I can accept that as they relate to past events there are unlikely to be further relevant articles. I would ask though that where a discussion about categories is ongoing, no changes are made to what articles are in that category otherwise it makes it difficult for others to assess the situation. Adambro (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Will leave them next time. Sorry. Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Remove --SVTCobra 00:51, 25 July 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 remove. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Van der Hoorn

[edit] Category:Pyrotechnics

Encyclopedic category. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

• Remove as nom. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• Remove I was just adding it to the articles, as it was added to the talk pages instead. Removing it is fine with me, but the user should be encouraged to do something different. Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk) 13:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• Remove little or no use from a news media perspective. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• Remove Would be more inclined to keep if it were already more widely used prior to this, say at 10 or more articles. Cirt (talk) 11:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment What does "Encyclopedic category" actually mean? If we have articles relating to pyrotechnics then Category:Pyrotechnics would seem a sensible name surely? Adambro (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

We also have articles on suicide bombers, yet that is not a category. It is a matter of judgment, to be sure, but at some point the topics become too specific to have a news purpose. --SVTCobra 00:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Remove --SVTCobra 00:51, 25 July 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 Keep. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Brian McNeil

[edit] Roller skating babies becomes YouTube sensation

Hardly newsworthy. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

• Remove –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep "hardly" means that somewhere in there, there is a touch of newsworthyness. Regardless of that, I hate to say this, but it is already published. The _only_ reason we should ever delete an article that has been published is if it is A) Blatantly false (we were mislead) or B) legal reasons. It's published, it's not a lie, hell its even got main stream media coverage. End of story. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 20:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• It's not news at all. It's a random advertisement that caught the attention of a few news agencies. There are thousands of YouTube videos with more hits. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I, personally, would never have reviewed and published. However, it's done. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I reviewed and published it & stand by that. Yes, it's not deadly serious etc. but it has got mainstream media coverage. I know that doesn't mean we should automatically cover it, but it's interesting for many of the readers as evidenced by the viewing statistics(currently about 9x the second most viewed article!)    Tris   23:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - I see sources used that include Xinhua News Agency, The Guardian, and The Daily Telegraph. Tristan Thomas (talk · contribs) also makes a good point. Cirt (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Newsworthiness is not the same as Wikipedia-style notability. --Killing Vector (talk) 13:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
• Remove This should not have been published. Consensus to publish is split, feedback on the opinions page is against it. --Killing Vector (talk) 13:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
• Remove - Definetely not notable. The susan Boyle video got over 50 million in a week. As a regular youtube user, I've seen lots of videos get over 5 million in a week. Yotcmdr (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I vote this way despite loathing that it is news. We do not have a Wikipedia:Notability policy. Objectively, this is no different than reporting what film did well at the box-office or what song hit the music charts. The sources are of high quality and I will not judge what one person considers news. I might someday contribute (or may already have) some item that others feel to be non-news. I prefer that they not have the power to delete it just because they don't find it interesting. --SVTCobra 00:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Not really all that newsworthy, but deleting published articles is way worse then letting it stay. --Cspurrier (talk) 07:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Published, so external sites may have linked to it now. It's bad to have external sites link to deleted pages. Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk) 12:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with various sentiments here; particularly that nothing that is published should be deleted (although it may be retracted without deletion) and that we should carry 'micronews' - if we allow people to write about, say, the election of a mayor in whatever town they live in then we can allow this. Hell, I can't exactly say othwerwise and I would stand by the decision to write that sort of stuff from time to time if I want. I reserve the right to make a scathing comments page remark about whatever nonevent you choose to cover, but I won't see it deleted. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

• I'd also like to point out the posts on the comments page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

  Top comment on talk is mine, but I voted keep above. It was an admonition to the reviewer. I'm sure the comments will be taken in a similar light. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:07, 12 July 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 Per vote. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by ShakataGaNai

[edit] Category:Association football

This category was wrongly created to replace Category:Football (soccer) instead of moving the category and then replacing it on the pages concenred. Per discussion at Wikinews:Water cooler/policy#Football category renamed without consensus, this change should never had been made without consesnus and, what's more, the discussion quickly showed a consensus against the change. I now propose we delete this category and restor the original on te articles concerned. That's 344 pages, BTW, quite a big mess to clean up. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] Comments

• Comment - it'd be nice if some more Wikinewsies weighed in on this. It has been open for more than ten days now. --SVTCobra 01:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

• Remove - per my comments at the Water cooler, Category:Football (soccer) serves our purposes better. That Wikipedia uses "Association football," should be of no consequence to Wikinews. --SVTCobra 22:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Remove We used to have "Football" and "American Football". Association Football? Never heard of it. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 06:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Remove per brianmc-what the hell is association football?!    Tris   08:52, 9 July 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 Speedy delete, stale. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Cirt

[edit] World space agencies face challenges and opportunities

I believe this article fails the newsworthiness aspect of Wikinews. Reporting on the general status of space programs isn't news. If there are news stories in here, they should be reported individually. Computerjoe's talk 21:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

Please vote using Keep, Remove, Neutral.

[edit] 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.

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

[edit] Template:Pre-war intelligence infobox

Speedy was requested, but declined by me. The template seems useless, but it is linked in quite a few articles, which made me hesitant to remove it. Thought i'd list it here to see what other users think about this. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

[edit] Votes

• Remove, could be replaced at linked articles with {{Iraq}}. Cirt (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Remove, having requested the speedy-support replacing. Dotty••|☎ 10:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• Remove - it is not even working properly. Replace with either {{Iraq}} or {{Iraq war}} as appropriate. --SVTCobra 22:53, 22 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.