Wikinews:Deletion requests/Archives/2010/Q1

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Please do not edit the contents of this page; it is intended for historical reference only.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


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 Blood Red Sandman

March 6, 2010 [edit]

Template:Cricket results [edit]

This template, which is not used by any article, is merely a storage of random set of cricket scores from long-ago. There is no attempt at making this something easily updated for use in articles. --SVTCobra 04:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

Votes [edit]

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

February 28, 2010 [edit]

File:Rig hits bridge in Mobile Bay.jpg [edit]

I've thought this looked suspicious for a while, after doing a little more investigation work I've concluded that it is clearly not permitted by our fair use policy. The image was uploaded from Flickr where it licenced CC-BY-NC. Since that licence isn't considered free enough for our purposes we could only use it under fair use. For some time no fair use rationale was provided but even now the rationale is questionable and I'd doubt whether any rationale could bring the image in line with the fair use policy.

Focusing attention on the image itself and its apparent source makes any concerns about the fair use rationale irrelevant however. It appears that the Flickr account is more a host of images for the users blog rather than a collection of images created by that individual. Even if the user had chosen CC-BY, the licence would still be invalid because it turns out they didn't create the image. A bit of searching turns up this news article which includes the image where AFP are credited as the source.

AFP could be described as a competing news organisation. On the issue of images from such organisations, Wikinews:Fair use says "Such photos and illustrations are absolutely taboo: It is very difficult to claim fair use in a competitive environment, especially as Wikinews allows commercial use of its content. Photos from competing news organizations that are uploaded without permission can be deleted on sight."

I would therefore propose that this image is deleted since it doesn't and hasn't ever complied with our image policies. The fair use policy effectively allows for images like this to be speedily deleted but I am aware that discussion is often helpful in cases like this. Adambro (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

  • The fact that this is an AFP image has to override concerns about breaking the archive. --SVTCobra 23:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

  • Agree with nom, delete. Pmlineditor discuss 10:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove it is an AFP image, strictly prohibited on Wikinews, regardless of what someone on Flickr says. --SVTCobra 23:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove Copyright violation. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove Serious copyvio, good detective work from Adambro. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 00:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, the Admin's talk page or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


February 26, 2010 [edit]

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:United States Military [edit]

This category is encyclopedic. We do not have enough articles in Category:Military to warrant the breaking down by country. One day, maybe, but that day is not today, or even 2010. --SVTCobra 01:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

Votes [edit]

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


February 17 2010 [edit]

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

Northern Ireland peace process under threat tonight [edit]

This article has been self-published by the user and with no review. It seems that nobody even noticed it since its publishing on January 23 2010, which shouldn't have happened. --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 21:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

  • Comment Deleted as per WN:PROD. This is precisely the problem with self-publishing, that it doesn't make the story appear on the main page and is removed from the newsroom DPLs, causing it to be effectively lost through the cracks. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

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


February 12, 2010 [edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is Left the Erskine Bridge for a swim, complete with concrete slippers. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Blood Red Sandman

Multiple Pakistan/Middle East-related deletions [edit]

Rana (talk · contribs) has been on one of his create-empty-or-useless categories sprees. Again.

In many of the cases where these have been created – especially redirects – their existence will interfere with the various cross-wiki link/search functions that will allow users coming from other projects to by-default force a search for material from a starting point on Wikipedia. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

  • Comment For a stark contrast, and a more realistic timing on creation of categories, I would point to Benny the mascot (talk · contribs) and Category:Benet Academy. Benny ensured there were a good number of articles to justify the creation of the category before doing so; then, in a timely fashion, put in place all appropriate {{editprotected}} requests. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Don't understand why there should be such a fuss about the portal-related pages, they were created entirely for project-purpose even if they are not currently active. I understand we don't have enough Pakistan reporters but that still doesn't justify your rationale, especially when there are other similar country-portal-pages which are more or less in the same condition. Furthermore, I am not the creator of Wikinews:WikiBureau Pakistan (it was created by User:Azamishaque who is currently inactive). I myself am listed as user # 2, and deleting it from my perspective, would mean deleting a Bureau that is propably more useful than most, if not all, of the Bureaux listed here. If some patience and serenity is exercised, especially in a growing project, maybe some doggedness and perseverance will be avoided Rana (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Because portals are deprecated? They generally end up maintained for a short while then left to fester until they reflect badly on the project by having months-old leads. --Brian McNeil / talk 03:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I think Pakistan is an active project more or less, compared to news items on other countries. There's a new lead every few couple of days; you shouldn't delete some of the project pages, the point being that especially when things like WikiBureau Gagauzia, Moldova, Transnistria, Nepal, Moldova etc. exist. Wikinews Australia is much bigger, with more contributors, but Wikinews:Australian discussion hasn't been touched since Feb 11, 2008! Rana (talk) 03:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't matter if articles are written. It only matters if the pages are used. The pages are not used. They should only be created if there is an actual need. If at some point in time, a need arises, they can be undeleted/recreated. If you feel other pages fall short of this standard, nominate them for deletion. Saying that other things exist that are similar does not imply that this stuff should exist. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Rana (talk · contribs) has requested the Bureau pages be moved into his userspace - is there consensus to do this now and take them out of the DR? --Brian McNeil / talk 13:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem with that. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

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 Gone to die in a hole. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Blood Red Sandman

Bureau of Labor Statistics and Category:Bureau of Labor Statistics [edit]

BLS is being used as a source, as - in many cases - are other government departments around the world which are not given this privileged treatment. If Wikinews is to have this category it should, in my opinion, only be used where a story is about the BLS - not when they pump out another feelgood-factor propoganda update. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

Votes [edit]

  • delete as nominator. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep It maybe "feel good" type stories, but they are... stories. Granted we don't have categories for other government agencies, we probably don't need them. There are 11 pages in this category already and my basic qualifier for "Should we have that category" is "Is the category being used/will be use". The answer is yes, so keep it. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Ignore the "feelgood" comment, focus on the basis that this is where the BLS is a source; Other sources are not accorded this special status. As a subject of an article none of those eleven actually qualify the BLS as a subject of the reports. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove encyclopedic --SVTCobra 11:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove per nominator, IMO we should only use this category when BLS is actually the *source* topic of the article; however, i don't think we have enough article to populate the category with that requirement as-is. Would suggest recreating the category if/when we have enough articles to populate it. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with the last part of what Tempo said. BLS should only be a category if the article is about the bureau (eg. "Scandal at the BLS" or "BLS changes data collection procedures"). When it is a source, it should not be a category. See our use of Category:BBC. Cheers, --SVTCobra 22:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me, I phrased myself incorrectly. I meant "topic", not "source", in other words I support using the category only when the article is about the organisation. :-b Don't know how that mistake slipped in there. I agree with Cobra. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
No worries --SVTCobra 01:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove It might not be a bad idea to have a set of categories for different sources in general, but having it for just a single one is a POV issue. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove agree with nom. Pmlineditor discuss 10:26, 6 March 2010 (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 restored into user space by Bawolff. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by SVTCobra

Victory over St. Patrick High School, Illinois keeps Benet Academy undefeated in conference [edit]

I need to use some of the text in this article for a future article. Also, the article was failed without a deletion template on it, so I really couldn't have anticipated its surprise deletion. Benny the mascot (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, moving it to userspace would be fine. Benny the mascot (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Done - User:Benny the mascot/Victory over St. Patrick High School, Illinois keeps Benet Academy undefeated in conference. Bawolff ☺☻ 12:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, the Admin's talk page or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


February 3, 2010 [edit]

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 SVTCobra

User:Benny the mascot/Benet Academy students raise money for leukemia patient [edit]

In my opinion, this archive has always been completely unnecessary and provides no value whatsoever to any reader. Benny the mascot (talk) 04:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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


February 2, 2010 [edit]

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

Category:China-US relations [edit]

Totally unneeded - can be trivially created via DPL. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

DPL? — μ 12:23, Tuesday February 2 2010 (UTC)
  • Dynamic page list. Like this...
Look at the code that generates the above list of the last 5 published, undisputed, articles in categories China, US, and Politics & conflicts. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
For Microchip's interest - docs are at WN:DPL. See Portal:North Korea nuclear proliferation for an example of using category intersection to do what Brianmc's suggesting. Bawolff ☺☻ 12:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

  • Remove --Brian McNeil / talk 12:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete; I wasn't aware of this system and apologise for creating useless categories without performing a metaspace search; I should have known not to create this. Sorry. — μ 13:00, Tuesday February 2 2010 (UTC)
  • No problem. Can you imagine how much work we'd have without this? --Brian McNeil / talk 13:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, the Admin's talk page or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


January 18, 2010 [edit]

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 SVTCobra

Category:Wackynews and Template:Wackynews infobox [edit]

I've been on the fence with this one for a long time. On one side, just about all news agencies have some form of "odd news" categorisation. The flip side, however, is that Wikinews - if we wish to be completely objective, which i think we should be - shouldn't have an opinion on whether something is "funny" or not. The category is inherently incompatible with the WN:NPOV policy; the definition of what is "wacky" is very subjective. For instance: This story might seem "wacky" to some people, but to others it would seem vulgar/bad taste to categorise it as such. Previous community consensus seems to be that categories that don't have hard criteria for being applied (for instance, Category:Terrorism) should be avoided.

I've brought this up at the Water Cooler, nobody was flatly opposed to removal of the category, plus the discussion stalled several weeks ago, so I figured the next step is to bring it over here for further consideration. Note, though, that I'm not insistent on outright deleting the category; if anyone can propose a method to keep this in some form, but while keeping strictly to the WN:NPOV policy, i'd be willing to reconsider. For that reason i'm not submitting a delete vote. But it seems pretty clear, to me, that we can't keep this category as-is. Tempodivalse [talk] 13:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

Votes [edit]

  • Keep Most news sources have something similar to this, and I find it quite amusing/harmless. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove The infobox, if used, displaces useful information that might be provided instead; and the category is an incitement to the infobox. --Pi zero (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep and Rename --I can't think of one of the top of my head, but we should definitely keep the category. Just slightly rename it.    Tris   08:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep and police better. The problem is particularly POV use of this category. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep I'd be very sad if it was deleted. With that said, Tempo raises some valid points. Perhaps we should try to have a formal definition of what counts as whackynews. (finding one that can be applied without pov would be hard though). Bawolff ☺☻ 13:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Something like news which is newsworthy solely because of their unusualness. maybe. Bawolff ☺☻ 13:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Or perhaps in a weaker form, "news which is newsworthy primarily because of their unusualness" --Cspurrier (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
News where the unusual aspect is enough to pass Wikinews:Newsworthiness in its own right? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, the Admin's talk page or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


January 12, 2010 [edit]

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

Brad Pitt hits the bottle as Angelina Jolie demands open relationship [edit]

Steaming pile of fetid dingo's kidneys based on two stories from a gossipy gutter-trash tabloid 'publication' (so, single source) and some waffle from more credible sources that is unrelated to the "sensation" attempted to be created here.

Oh, and you can't self-publish this - this is *exactly* why there are technical measures in place to force independent peer review by someone who is semi-competent at assessing sources, neutral point of view, and the newsworthiness of an article. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

Votes [edit]

  • kill tabloid trash with a blunt object. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove Not at all newsworthy, and someone tries to keep publishing it. I don't think it can be rewritten up to our standards. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove I failed the article the first time for various reasons, none of which have been correctly addressed --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove --No explanation needed    Tris   16:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove as tabloid/not newsworthy. the.weatherman.(talk). 21:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, the Admin's talk page or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


January 10, 2010 [edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is speedied by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs). Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by SVTCobra

User:Symode09/Announcement [edit]

Old, lame hoax. Zetawoof (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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


January 9, 2010 [edit]

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

Template:Language [edit]

There was some recent discussion on the water cooler about this sort of warning, and consensus was that it's not appropriate to have them. This template hasn't been ever used in the past, and it doesn't seem as if it ever will in the future, so i'm suggesting it be deleted (or, if not that, suggest what should be done with it). Tempodivalse [talk] 14:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

Votes [edit]

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


January 2, 2010 [edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is Article marked as stale to allow through WN:PROD. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by AlexandrDmitri

Blue Moon occurs on New Year's Eve [edit]

Article is effectively written about an event in the past. Article is effectively stale, it has not been published after three days. Cocoaguy talkcontribs‽ 18:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

  • Comment Actually, stuff like this usually should be put through WN:PROD instead. If you tag the article as {{abandoned}} it'll be deleted within two days, pending no objections. Tempodivalse [talk] 18:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

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.


December 27, 2009 [edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is Deleted, appropriate articles moved to Category:US War on Terror. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Brian McNeil

Category:War on Terror [edit]

This is a blanket category, inconsistently applied, and poorly defined. The "catchphrase" was the product of the US Bush administration, no longer in office, and has been semi-adopted by various regimes who are at various levels of non-free per press freedom indices.

This category should be strictly restricted to actions or pronouncements of the George W. Bush administration that can be clearly linked to their thematic ideological campaign known as the "War on Terror", renamed to clearly identify it with that US administration, or – as is preferable to me – completely deleted. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments & discussion [edit]

  • Comment - I cleaned up the category, removing extraneous pages that did not mention "war on terror". Cirt (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  • This looks a lot more realistic now in terms of what the category should contain. However, I believe it should be renamed to Category:George W. Bush administration "War on Terror" which – technically – means it is a closed/historical category unless there is notable and clear reference to that particular Bush meme. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I think an acceptable rename would be to "US War on Terror". Cirt (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, but is it over or still ongoing? It's clearly linked to the Bush administration, once cleaned up nothing since they left office appears on it. As you might've gathered I don't subscribe to the perpetual War on topic-du-jour shtick; even Category:United States War on Terror will attract incorrectly filed entries and potential disputes over what is appropriate. Any ideas where the currently NPOV w:War on Terror might be going? I'd expect that to eventually move to a more encyclopedic name and we'd want to match it. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
w:War on Terror actually redirects to w:War on Terrorism, so "US War on Terrorism" is the best option, for now. Cirt (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd accept that. Of course, you can't rename categories. You have to delete them and repopulate them. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, for "US War on Terrorism". Cirt (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The reported-on bill is "Declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary". So, Category:US Global War on Terror. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd rather we go with "US War on Terrorism", to keep it more in-sync with w:War on Terrorism. Cirt (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  • If I could influence the Wikipedia naming scheme I'd have US "Global War on Terror" and restrict our coverage to official US commentary using the term. Let's leave mass changes until we get a few more opinions. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia naming conventions use the most common use of the term for article titles. In this case that appears to be War on Terrorism, followed by War on Terror. Cirt (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  • So, care to speculate what it will be in 100 years time? --Brian McNeil / talk 19:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Not sure how that is relevant to now. Cirt (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Because 1) It would be good to have the category scope well-defined and 2) A name more closely associated with historical context should more descriptively define the category.
Do you really expect the "War on Terror" to be in-progress 100 years from now? --Brian McNeil / talk 23:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
We'd have to determine that 100 years from now, but not now. Cirt (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

  • Comment A "War on Terror" or a "War on Terrorism" is a neverending war. Has the new administration, in press releases or legislation, used these themes or the bush administration one "Global War on Terror"? --Brian McNeil / talk 22:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename --US war on terrorism or something similar.    Tris   08:41, 19 January 2010 (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 deleted. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Cirt

Comments:Shooting in Finnish mall leaves four dead [edit]

The deletion summary ('{{Commentary}} http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/File:Brianmc-passport-photo.jpg Just saying but doesnt he...' (and the only contributor was '72.73.95.21') appears to indicate that the offensive comment was directed at Brian McNeil, the deleting administrator. Offensive comments, however, do not trigger automatic deletion under Wikinews:Criteria for speedy deletion. Benny the mascot (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

  • Question I see that someone else posted a comment. Does that mean that the offensive comment has essentially disappeared? Benny the mascot (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
    Nope, it's still present in the deleted pages log and can be restored (but only viewable by sysops). It wasn't overwritten, if that's what you mean. Tempodivalse [talk] 22:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Just in case anyone's curious, the full content of the said deleted post was:

REPOSTING OF TROLLING COMMENT REMOVED

-Tempodivalse [talk] 22:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That user, however, was a troll. Troll comments can be removed. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Under what policy? Benny the mascot (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Hm, i don't know. WN:SD doesn't really apply to this page. Perhaps WN:IAR? Tempodivalse [talk] 23:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
It's more a case of no policy prohibits it. The blocking policy allows us to block users like that, its logical to also delete their troublemaking and clear the way for legitimate users. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Congratulations. You've just succeeded in feeding the troll by wasting time. Don't jump all over shit like this unless you review the contributor's history and subsequent updates to pages they touch. This 'tard was libelling me by implying I was associated with the Finnish gunman. All the evidence to support that and earlier disruptive edits, is viewable by anyone. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
    • You could have just blanked the page instead of deleting it. WN:SD doesn't give you the power to delete commnts like that. Also, what you did provides a dangerous precedent for future censorship. Benny the mascot (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
      • It doesn't prevent him either, and that's very deliberate. Admins can use their commonsense. I've restored comments from neo-Nazis but I'd have deleted that. The laid-back approach works because we ahve a close community. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Per WN:SG: "For anything not a valid candidate for speedy deletion, use Wikinews:Deletion requests, or consider other approaches (moving the content to user's own area, editing content)." If you haven't noticed yet, I believe that admins and bureaucrats are limited to the powers expressly given to them. (That's just my opinion, though, and is more of an ideological issue than a policy issue) The vote here applies not only to this specific incident, but also to all other comments in the Comments namespace. Benny the mascot (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I think WN:IAR applies here, to some extent. We really don't have much of a policy on speedy-deleting comments pages, but I think common sense should prevail in areas where we don't have hard policies or guidelines. For instance, supposing someone creates a comments page consisting of nothing but an expletive-filled, personal attack rant against another user. We wouldn't list that at WN:DR because there's no speedy deletion criteria for it, would we? It's sort of the same thing here, the IP seems to have been trolling and wasn't providing an opinion about the article itself (which is what the comments pages are meant for). Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk] 00:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Blanking the page would accomplish the exact same thing. The public should at least have the ability to verify that admins aren't censoring potentially legitimate comments. Benny the mascot (talk) 04:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I swear, if 2010 is full of WikiLawyering shit like this I'll go rouge. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Question In response to bawolff's comment, would inappropriate comments only be blanked if other users have already posted comments on the same page? Benny the mascot (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
    Probably so, as that's more convenient than purging the edit history for a single diff. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
    That's how we've always done it. If requested by someone targeted, we might delete the revision. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
    So if troll A can edit a blank page and get his comment deleted, but troll B can edit a page already filled with other comments and only get his comment blanked, then the administrative actions would be unfairly harsher for troll A, wouldn't it? Benny the mascot (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
    Um, I really don't see what all this is getting at. What difference does it make, as long as the trollish comment is removed from immediate view and the troll reprimanded. Who cares if troll A is treated a bit differently than troll B? They have absolutely no place here anyway. Tempodivalse [talk] 16:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment This is sheer stupidity and WikiLawyering. I've removed the repost of the comment here. Will all of you take a look at how many revisions of this page there are? Now, consider the work an administrator would have to do to deal with the revisions containing the repost of the troll comment. The entire page history has to be deleted and selectively restored, one checkbox at a time. Thanks for that. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Further to the point, I've had a steward oversight out all revisions containing the offending comment. Admins can review that - it isn't a "consign to oblivion" oversight. However, this page has over 5,000 revisions. It cannot be deleted without locking up the entire database back-end for Wikinews. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with this oversight action. Cirt (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

  • Support Comments pages should never be deleted, but rather blanked if there is anything offensive. Benny the mascot (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Oh go on! Prove my bloody point for me; let Benny review the effluent this cretin posted and reach into his obviously limited experience of adversarial confrontations online and propose a method of dealing with idiots like this. A comments page for an article should be about the article; not about you being cautioned for disruption and blocked for being a wanker. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • keep page deleted. Admins have authority to remove comments that they deem as offesnive. Admins have authority to determine what constitutes an offensive comment. If a page consists of only a single comment, deleting it is a valid method of removing a comment. (This seems common sense to me, but i also feel that this is implied by Wikinews:Comment_Space#Etiquette "Users on comments pages are expected to abide at all times by Wikinews:Etiquette. The most common breaches of Etiquette are failures to be civil and the closely related problem of engaging in personal attacks.") Bawolff ☺☻ 05:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Bawolff's edit summary pretty much sums it up for me: I'm not comfortable having this amount of "red tape". Blatant personal attacks should be removed. Personally, it doesn't matter that much to me whether they're simply blanked or outright deleted; the main thing is to get them out of immediate view. Note that we don't censor legitimate comments on commentary pages that are relevant to the corresponding articles, and/or are not ad hominem attacks against other contributors; I've seen people with a neo-Nazi POV post comments, and their remarks were never removed or otherwise censored, since they weren't attacking any contributor, or randomly trolling (as is the case here). Tempodivalse [talk] 05:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted Transparency of administrative actions is important obviously, but the whole point of having admins is to use the mop and bucket wisely to keep Wikinews as a reputable site for news, not for general trolling. All decent sites I know have some sort of moderation with house rules. If we really need policy for this, I'll go ahead and create WN:TROLLING to deal with similar situations, but I hope that we don't need to get to the point where we tie ourselves up in red tape. One of the reasons that I personally prefer Wikinews to Wikipedia, where I am also active, is that so far I haven't seen any Wikilawyering where—to my mind—the decision is bleedin' obvious, but someone is prepared to argue for days over the interpretation of a subclause. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 11:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted—we need a WN:NPA policy to cover this, to avoid confusion and contention in future. Dendodge T\C 12:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Before drafting anything on no personal attacks we'd need a policy against wikilawyering. A no personal attacks policy could be abused to disrupt the community. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Seems like WN:IAR already is a policy against wikilawyering. And given that there's a policy against wikilawyering, WN:E already covers no personal attacks. --Pi zero (talk) 14:35, 1 January 2010 (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/2010/Q1&oldid=984206"