Wikinews:Deletion requests/Archives/2009/Q4

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

Please do not edit the contents of this page; it is intended for historical reference only.

Contents

[edit] December 26, 2009

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is Delete, also speedy as self-request by creator. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Cirt

[edit] Category:Terrorism

This has previously been deleted. Wikinews does not have an opinion on whether or not the actions of an individual or group are terrorism. This is, as the previous discussion states – and associated deletion of category Islamic terrorism – not how these people will self-identify or be universally seen. Calling someone a terrorist is an inherently POV act. Wikinews should not do so. --Brian McNeil / talk 02:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


[edit] Comments

  • Note: By limiting inclusion to articles that already have the word "terrorism" itself in the very title of the headline of the articles, this is not subjective. Rather, it is merely a category for articles having to do with the topic of "terrorism". Otherwise, we might as well forbid anyone using the word "terrorism" in any article title on Wikinews, ever. Cirt (talk) 04:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Um, please have a look at the articles currently in Category:Terrorism. The word is used on plenty of other articles, with seemingly no prior objection. Cirt (talk) 04:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Terror alert in Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, and Chennai is not terrorism. It is an Indian Government issued alert; it is their POV to call it a "terror alert". The article should not have taken that as a statement of fact. Indian government issues "terror alert" for Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, and Chennai would have been the neutral title. Wikinews does not have a position on whether or not an act is terrorism, or if an article is about a threat of terrorism. I repeat, this is an expression of POV no different than having Category:Freedom fighters. Terrorism is an "authoritarian" labelling of opponents; we don't accept it when Burma applies it to pro-democracy campaigners; nor should we accept it when this is the opinion of the Indian or United States government. --Brian McNeil / talk 04:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Placing an article in the category "terrorism" is not calling or labeling anything "terrorism". It is merely saying it is an article related to the general topic area. Cirt (talk) 04:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Again, North Carolina terrorist ring broken up, seven arrested; the title violates WN:NPOV by using "terrorist", it fails to say who says they are terrorists. Read the details, you might be closer to justifying the category — there is an offence of terrorism within the United States, legally defined — but what is the legal definition in Burma? In Somalia? How many articles are categorised as terrorism when labelled as such by Al Quaeda? You just can't have this category; read the past deletion discussion, categorising what western democracies call terrorism as terrorism; you have to categorise what Al Quaeda calls terrorism as terrorism. --Brian McNeil / talk 04:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying that all articles with "terrorism" in the headline should be moved so that the word "terrorism" is always in quotes? Cirt (talk) 05:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Terrorism should never have been used in any title unless attributed to a source in such a way as it could have been quoted. I will not comment on the names of titles in the category at the moment; the discussion and frequent arguments over word choice at the time of the previous deletion would illustrate why it was deleted, and why all Wikinewsies should take extra care if the term crops up anywhere in or around an article. --Brian McNeil / talk 05:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
That is a bit of an extreme position. Thousands of mainstream media articles use the word in headlines without quotes. Cirt (talk) 05:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment To further make my point, do you see the word "terrorism" in any of the articles here? I can't be sure I've always been as vigilant, but the democratically elected government of Thailand would put every single one of those stories in the category terrorism. A very significant number of people living in the troubled provinces and neighbouring Malaysia would strongly dispute that. --Brian McNeil / talk 05:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, so for you this is a POINT issue? Cirt (talk) 05:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  • And when Iran declares their own "War on Terrorism", then what? --Brian McNeil / talk 05:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
e/c - I fear Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) would take issue with that, as well. Cirt (talk) 05:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  • We can create separate categories for every ongoing war or conflict. Benny the mascot (talk) 05:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Notes on prior actions of voters:

  • I passed the article because I believed that it was not in violation of any policy or consensus. That fact that I passed the article should not affect my vote here. Benny the mascot (talk) 05:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
The article is relevant to the topic, and is within easily define inclusion criteria of having the very word of the category in the headline. You evidently had no objection to the word in the headline at the time of the review, when you passed it. Cirt (talk) 05:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
The Indian government called it a "terror alert", not Wikinews. There is no editorial bias in that article. Benny the mascot (talk) 05:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
There are no quotation marks around the word, in the headline of the article that you reviewed and published. Cirt (talk) 05:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
The Style Guide doesn't call for quotation marks. In addition, quotation marks might reduce the gravity of the situation described. Benny the mascot (talk) 05:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps. Does not really get around the fact that it is directly relevant to the topic. Cirt (talk) 05:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Tempodivalse (talk · contribs) had no WN:NPOV objections to terrorism as part of the headline in these articles - he archived and full protected them in these versions, and did not nominate any of them for deletion, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Cirt (talk) 05:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


  • <edit conflict>This is not a WN:POINT attempt at disruption. I strongly object to it being characterised as such. If you want an opinion, as my final word on this with a flat refusal to be further badgered by the creator and sole supporter of this category at the moment, it is a lesson that needs given to a significant number of Wikinews contributors; it is one of the reasons I repeatedly remind people that "VOA is a propaganda division of the United States government". People will not self-identify as such ever, such as Muslims or any religious group might. This is a derogatory label anyone can apply if they've enough money and clout. Stop badgering people over a discussion that should be civil instead of inquisitional. --Brian McNeil / talk 05:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
[7] and [8] = these particular comments by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) unfortunately do seem to have one particular WN:POINT in mind. Especially his drawing attention to Category:South Thailand insurgency. Cirt (talk) 05:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I will, once again, ask you to stop badgering myself and the other contributors who have currently cast votes for the deletion of this category. Further attempts to accuse me of making this nomination for reasons of WN:POINT and I will take this to dispute resolution seeking an uninvolved administrator sanction you to justify the inclusion of specific example articles instead of accusing those holding an alternate opinion of applying it inconsistently. Such behaviour, in my opinion, counts as disruption. This category was previously deleted on neutrality grounds; you do not appear to have reviewed that discussion at all. A similar inquisitorial investigation into the voters there would not be constructive. --Brian McNeil / talk 06:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I have already explained inclusion for specific example articles. However, I will soon be proposing an alternate idea that hopefully all will find acceptable. :) Cirt (talk) 06:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  • That would be better than having to police this nightmare. --Brian McNeil / talk 06:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
No one should feel forced that they "have" to "police" anything. Perhaps a break might be in order. :P Cirt (talk) 06:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  • No, thank you, I don't need a break. I would expect the end result of this DR to be the category deleted as I requested; and I would expect all the current contributors to perform the "policing" – should some consensus and rules be thrashed out to allow this category to remain. The notice of its recreation did not link to the previous vote for this category to be deleted; Blood Red Sandman did not appear to comment beyond accepting its creation from a trusted user. Perhaps you should have raised this as an undeletion request instead. --Brian McNeil / talk 06:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
You neglect to mention the notice did acknowledge the prior discussion. The prior discussion did not encompass a rationale of articles clearly with "terrorism" in the title. Cirt (talk) 06:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Between us we've written enough to put anyone off scrolling down far enough to actually vote. I missed population of the category, just caught it somewhere odd in recent changes and recalled the prior deletion. You'd mentioned it, but not dug the link out the archive and presented it. I doubt BRS did either, and I'm sure he'll review it and comment later. --Brian McNeil / talk 06:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

  • Remove as nom and protect against recreation. I made my comments on the prior discussions; Wikinews should be vigilant to avoid taking an editorial position in how it categorises any act, event, or such. --Brian McNeil / talk 02:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Very subjective. Benny the mascot (talk) 02:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Too subjective to be applied neutrally, I agree. Neutralizer's and Borofkin's comments in the previous DR pretty much sum up my opinion on this. Tempodivalse [talk] 03:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - To be used for articles that have the word "terrorism" in the title, and deal with the subject matter. Not subjective if only used for articles that have the word itself in the very headline of the article. Cirt (talk) 04:24, 26 December 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.


[edit] November 6

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] US

Brian wanted to kill this redirect on the basis that it shouldn't really be used in articles; we should link to United States instead would I assume be the implied meaning. Tempo restored because, wether we should or not (I'm prolly guilty and I know I shouldn't) a large number of pages link. I'm not altogether sure this should go; keep out of articles, yes, but if someone sticks 'US' in the search then the redirect becomes useful. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 00:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

[edit] Votes

  • Keep While we probably shouldn't link to US (United States is better), this is a helpful redirect if someone decides to search for it (redirects to the US portal). Also, if we delete this, we'll have to correct the links in dozens of articles where it's used - which will take some significant effort. I think it's easier to let it be and simply discourage use of the redirect in the future. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep if nothing else for the people who punch "US" into the search box. Sorry to say, but us Americans are lazy and dont like typing out "United States of America" all the time. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 20:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep As a proud, lazy American, I wholly support this. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 02:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep --Similar reasons to above.    Tris   13:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Useful as a navigational redirect. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Agree with above comments. the wub "?!" 11:49, 13 November 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.


[edit] October 15

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

[edit] Category:Strictly Come Dancing

Only one article at the moment, "popcorn" entertainment that is unlikely to generate significant coverage, not critical to keep track of this in such a way. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

  • Comment I have put up some protected requests to get some archived articles into this category. Rayboy8 (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

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


[edit] October 1

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

[edit] Various Pakistan-related images in the File: namespace

The following: File:Map of Pakistan highlighting Sindh.png, File:Lahore Emblem.jpg, File:AK map3.jpg, and File:Flag of Sindh.PNG all lack any rationale, they include images copied from Wikipedia and mangled by saving the displayed version instead of retrieving the original SVG format; maps which, if not ripped off from somewhere else, should be on Commons. The uploader was warned about the lack or rationale, poor uploading, and general issues about these several days ago. Despite this notice on his talk page, and clear recent activity, absolutely no response has been forthcoming, nor any effort to bring these into compliance. Thus, I nominate them for a trip round the back of the chemical sheds where they shall meet a timely end. The alternative was just being a bastard and speedy deleting them as I could under project policy. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

[edit] Votes

  • Zap with 24kV, says the nominator. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:22, 1 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Deletion_requests/Archives/2009/Q4&oldid=930580"
Personal tools
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Wikinews
Regions
Print/export
Toolbox