Wikinews:Deletion requests/Archives/2010/Q3

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

Contents

July 9, 2010 [edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is Early close keep by nominator. This doesn't have a snowball's chance.. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by InfantGorilla

File:Actavia Nasr 2010 publicity.jpg [edit]

The Twitter profile doesn't say that the picture has been released for press use. Does it say so elsewhere? --InfantGorilla (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

  • More permissive. - Amgine | t 16:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not an expert at copyright stuff, but in my experience I'd say we're fairly liberal with fair use. Tempodivalse [talk] 16:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

  • Keep Fair use. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 20:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep I think that'd qualify as fair use publicity - photo of a celebrity posted to a public site by the celebrities account in order to identify said celebrity to the world. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per Bawolff. Tempodivalse [talk] 16:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per above, falls under fair use here. —fetch·comms 18:36, 11 July 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.


July 6, 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 ShakataGaNai

Wikinews:Userbox Policy [edit]

It's a proposed policy from 4 years ago. No one really cares about it and we don't have any issue with user boxes. Lets just nuke it and save ourselves some unnecessary bureaucracy. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

  • Comment It doesn't appear that much or any action at all occurred regarding this proposed policy recently. One of two things may happen: it can be ratified as an official policy (which could be argued as redundant as per Shakata), or it could be removed. Tyrol5 (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I am a newcomer to this old proposal. My initial reaction is that it is a confusing overlay of permissions and exceptions, that I do not fully understand. It appears to say "Anything goes, as long as it is not prohibited by user page policy or template policy." If it does say that, it is not needed, as it is redundant. --InfantGorilla (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

  • support as push the button man. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • support I don't think anybody has complained about userboxen and the inappropriate ones are easily handled. —fetch·comms 18:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove nobody cares. --Diego Grez return fire 18:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • support Pointless, it's not like we've much in the way of userboxes to worry about. C628 (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove Policy for the sake of policy is the only use I can see. The UK has an offence of 'causing explosions with intent to endanger life'. This has already been illegal for as long as there's been a law; the intent to endanger bit is attempted murder (or murder if successful). The causing explosions bit is an offence under the Explosive Substances Act 1883. I would submit that the redundancy here is similar; why is content different simply because it is contained in a userbox? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove It's old, not official, and (most importantly) it's not a big issue. Tyrol5 (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove Why don't we repeal the relevant ArbCom decision while we're at it? Benny the mascot (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Good call Tyrol5 (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • What arbcom decision is that? Gopher65talk 23:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove I don't think we've ever had problems with userboxes in the recent past. IIRC, this page was created mainly as a reaction to the Amgine-BrianNZ argument and resulting arbcom case. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep as the lone, dissenting voice. Decorating your page with, "This user has watched all the Matrix movies and is an anally-retentive dipshit" does nothing to further the project goals. I think Benny is demonstrating his lack of life experience calling for the ArbCom decision to be overturned, but if that is to be done I want it done by the ArbCom. What I will kick up a fuss over is the creation of stupid categories to keep track of who has done things such as wasting time learning Klingon. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk • main talk 21:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
    Are you trying to say that THIS is not a good use of time or server resources?! BLASPHEMER!!! --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 22:18, 6 July 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.


July 2, 2010 [edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is Deleted and replaced with placeholder indicating failed article was there. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Brian McNeil

Wikinews interviews Chiaki Hayashi, Asian Projects Coordinator at Creative Commons [edit]

Subject of interview has complained via email, indicating her disappointment with the lack of professionalism involved in the entire interview process. Subject of interview also stated she was "shocked" by the "poor quality" of the interview, and requested changes be made to fix this - and yet instead the interview was published with mistakes not fixed. Possible issue involving significant concerns with Saqib/Saki, see also Saqib/Saki update (at WN:AAA) and Sock-building of banned user Saqib (at WN:CU). Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

Comment I didn't feel that she is uncomfortable while giving interview however now if subject wants her interview got deleted just because she thinks that her English was poor, should we listen to her? Why she was trying to improve her comments (And put me in trouble) some days ago if she was not expecting her interview or don't want to see her interview on WN? What I think is that interviews are same as sources and references and they should not be deleted.--Saki (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain what happened, as indicated in an email by the subject, when the original interview was lost by you and she declined to be interviewed again. Where did this interview come from if the original was lost? Thanks.    Tris   16:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Nothing was happenned unusual before, during and after the interview. Yes, I deleted the audio file by mistake but there was a copy of that audio already in the recycle-bin folder. So before I found this copy, I e-mail'd subject if she can manage to give interview once again by e-mail but she told me that she can't (perhaps she was busy) so she asked me that I'll have to write transcript myself based on our conversations and then she can review it before publishing on WN. But when I found copy of audio file, I make transcript based on audio and sent her transcript for review (perhaps she was busy so she repond too late when article was already got published) and put it on WN for review process. That's all! --Saki (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Was she expecting to be able to fully review it, or get a CC colleague to review it for her to ensure the English was understood correctly? If so, did this happen? Sorry for the questions, just want to see where we are. Regards.    Tris   18:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
You can see the reviewed version of comments here [1] that she sent to me after re-writing (fixing grammers and sentences) but I have no idea whether she did it herself or her colleague. But it was recieved me soo late when the article was already got published thats why edits were reverted and article got locked.--Saki (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Question Saki, Under what license did you publish http://freeculturemovement.org/Untitled.wma ? (It is easy for another Wikinewsie to make an Ogg Vorbis version that could be uploaded Wikimedia Commons if the original recording was under a suitable free license.) --InfantGorilla (talk) 13:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Saki interview with cc-japan.ogg. (I'm using the "user clearly intended the audio to be used on wikinews, so its ok if we temporary upload it for discussion purposes argument") Bawolff ☺☻ 22:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Case Study #2 for Wikinews' Code of Ethics [edit]

I've had past disagreements over the issue of a Code of Ethics on Wikinews. Yes, this is a draft policy. Yes, in the linked-to case, I was arguing against it being revised; however, there is is a matter of wikt:context. Here, it is a clear breach that any more professional journalistic enterprise would not entertain. I'll start by referring people to the relevant pages, here, and In The Other Place™.

  1. Wikinews:Code of Ethics
  2. Wikinews talk:Code of Ethics
  3. Wikipedia:Journalism ethics and standards

These, themselves, offer multiple other links which should weigh on people's choice when voting below. The issue was brought to my attention less than an hour ago, and this facet of a current problem deftly highlighted in the voting below.

For further reference, the "draft" CoE is linked to from the following pages, or mentions of ethical issues spring up on;

DO NOT attempt to involve Moulton (talk · contribs) in this. He's a jackass; he was permabanned from Wikiversity; and, tried the same antics here. What I believe should happen, and would request another administrator who has been around for a while consider doing, is:

Apply the principles laid out in the draft policy to use the speedy deletion template on the interview with Chiaki from Loftworks.

While I do see where Erik (Eloquence (talk · contribs)) was coming from in wanting 'genericised'/'hypothetical' case-studies, people always learn more from experience. This, really, has to be just one of those cases. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk • main talk 16:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

  1. Is there a suggestion that, before the interview, Saki offered the interviewee final approval of the final text?
  2. Why not re-publish the article with the changes requested by the interviewee?
  3. Do you propose that we grant interviewees a veto on (use of their on the record statements in) articles?
--InfantGorilla (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
  1. No. A claim by Saqib to have "lost" the audio, and the subject declining to be re-interviewed.
  2. No. That is revisionism. This should never have been published, the methods were unacceptable, and the vague hint there is a story destroyed.
  3. Again, with feeling, no. But, for different reasons. I await input from other accredited reporters who have seen the correspondence with the subject and can draw their own conclusions. Otherwise, the right, royal screwup that this represents will make us the news. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk • main talk 18:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears (1) the case for deletion is based on a charge that the interview was procured or conducted in an unethical or illegitimate manner (so causing or risking harm and misrepresentation), and (2) it appears that substantive evidence for that charge is in correspondence to accredited reporters from the subject (via scoop). If I understand this correctly, I must decline to vote in this deletion request, and leave it to accredited reporters to have the substantive discussion.

Do I understand correctly?

I would request: (1) that the discussion be on the wiki, even if you have to encode your reasons in generalities, and that (2) others who, like me, can not see correspondence (which, quite rightly, is privileged and confidential) strike their votes or decline to vote.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment Agree with InfantGorilla, since a great deal of this seems to have been done via scoop, I do not have sufficient knowledge of what has gone on here to be able to make a reasonably informed vote. Therefore, I Abstain. C628 (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
  • response: I got my ass in a sling over publication of emails around the Matthew Edwards debacle. Not happening this time. Additionally, not giving this known troublemaker an option to casually jump back in after a couple of years and royally fuck up the entire community again. The correct process for a permanently banned, disruptive user, is to seek unban and mentoring. I would argure the project cannot afford such a waste of resources. A clear indication of intent to work up to a level where widely trusted to undertake this sort of work is proven in the first instance. Not the mischaracterisation of "permanently banned" and a new user created, then renamed, to match an unblocked sock on enWP, as "involved with Wikinews". Oh, and if you're voting, the section for that is below here. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I have not the slightest idea how any of that is relevant to my comment, which was put exactly where I intended it to be put. C628 (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It is relevant in that, there is a general push towards what this DR has turned into; namely, extremely over-cautious response to what are serious problems. I *could* have published numerous emails between myself and people at Creative Commons, I could - as a complete waste of personal time - dug up idiotic online PMs from the cretin formerly known as Saqib (talk · contribs) from my chat logs. I did not. There has been a desperate rush to assume good intentions on the part of a fucking asshole who threatened to destroy this project, and was proven to have an army of socks at the ready. Whilst threaded in-line as a response to you, my comment was intended for a far wider audience; don't take it personally. Some of our younger contributors need sharply shaken out of their assumption that, "people are generally good"; that was the basis for Marx's principle known as w:Communism, and we've all seen enough, and read enough history, to know it does not work. The never-publicised fine-print is that Marx himself admitted in later life that the noble ideal was doomed to failure as a consequence of human nature.
Anyway, thanks to Amgine (talk · contribs) for spotting the weakness in this Gordellian knot; I can continue to have faith that, on the whole, contributors want to see Wikinews continue, and prosper. For those who've been a bit more serious about getting involved, the good news is the Wikinewsie.org domain is now renewed for another two years. I've also registered a phone number for credential verification, and need to work on that. I do not expect even five minutes of WMF staff/developer time to resolve it, even if we were to manage it. This will require some clever hackery, and a secure server running Asterisk somewhere press-friendly, to make +1 (XXX)-4EN-WNCV usable. Now, can someone establish if we have any good contributors in ranges used by Saqib, offer them IPBlockExempt, and put a reasonable block length on said ranges to shake out the dog-only-knows how many socks he's likely got. Yes, even if that puts us on the news for blocking Pakistan. I spent about five hours of a precious day off today dealing with government departments over personal financial issues, but got a callback from an office that has no incoming phone lines within 45 minutes of my final call. The end-result is another FoIA for a long running investigation, and a paid-for personal FoIA on payday to get call logs and recordings (where available). Those who have a private email address for me can ask for more specific details on that, and possibly get involved. I've already requested another administrator put the {{delete}} template on this article; that's based on the trust extended to them by the community, and a final, third, admin then actioning the request. It is, frankly, as reasonable as I'm prepared to be on this (I'm fresh out of ammo for the AK-47). --Brian McNeil / talk 01:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment on deletion [edit]
  • Right... The way I see it, Deletion and {{Correction}} are not incompatable. Very good reasons have been raised why I should now be striking my vote; but for the reasons I made it I will not, as yet. I propose that, instead of leaving an empty hole where once there was an article, we replace the article with something under the same title explaining what happened, where the article went and that it has been retracted fully. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I certainly see where you're coming from. I have no problem with a deletion followed by creating a new page at the same address containing a "withdrawn for serious proceduiral and journalistic ethics" boilerplate. And, let's make sure this is the last time we ever need to deal with something like that. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk • main talk 19:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Just for clarity, BRS, are we to understand your position as the following?
  1. Your vote is keep with a correction notice (leaving the full text of the article visible below the correction notice), but
  2. if we decide to delete against your wishes, then you propose that we create a correction notice in the article's place
--InfantGorilla (talk) 05:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I am confused as to what Brian McNeil's vote is. Found it: he struck his reluctant keep vote and voted Speedy delete.
  • I don't think we have a central place for discussing corrections and retractions. This page (deletion requests) might as well be it.
--InfantGorilla (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment At-present, I count the vote as 6 for deletion, and 5 to keep. Of the latter, one is from Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) who indicates elsewhere in this discussion that he is tending more towards deletion and recreation as a notice that "There used to be an article here, but it was unfair to the interviewee, of particlularly low quality, ... etc.". Would someone with a little less at stake here please confirm what I'm seeking and action a deletion and recreation as a stub notice? -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk • main talk 06:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I hear unexplained warnings of harm, so I blanked the article today, pending the outcome of this Deletion Request.
  • This is due to close tomorrow. If it were to be closed today, it would likely close as No consensus, kept. I think the issue here is too important, and such a close would be totally unsatisfactory. Please hear this as a shout from the sidelines to urge more effort from both sides to reach a real consensus.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Before I close this and deal with it asi it should be, I'd just like to ask how you conclude "kept" is appropriate here? You can answer on my talk, this'll be gone shortly. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk • main talk 07:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

Please vote using Keep, Remove, Neutral, or Comment followed by signature

  • Delete, significant concerns regarding above. And per complaints made by subject of interview regarding poor quality. -- Cirt (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Per Cirt. --Diego Grez return fire 17:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Per longstanding practice and consensus (which still hasn't found its way into any polciy pages). {{correction}} is the way to go. We can man up and admit mistakes to our readers; we should not defraud them thus. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
    • {{correction}} is for correction's to an article. Perhaps I'm not fully following this debate, but is there an actual correction we wish to make? I get the impression this is more about an unease over how the interview was conducted. Bawolff ☺☻ 17:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
      • We've used it also for full retractions. If it isn't even at that stage, why is it at DR? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) We can slightly misuse the template. Just mention the concerns and the problems with the interview. —Mikemoral♪♫ 18:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
          • The template allows the word "Correction" to be overridden by some other label; that capability was added so that it could be used on this article, which was not a correction at all. --Pi zero (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Per BRS. —Mikemoral♪♫ 17:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Reluctant keep because this was published (/me eyes daggers at RockerBallAustralia).Under no circumstances would I support this user engaging in original reporting again. Those who have commented above have seen correspondence from the interview subject, including details of failure to keep appointments with Creative Commons people in Japan. Xe has, I assume willfully, ignored my criticism that the puported audio is unplayable on a Linux install with non-free codec packs installed. I've plugged in an external drive full of lossless WMA stuff before and that played just fine. Frankly, I'm sick of the "yes, but..." that keeps getting trotted out every single time Saqib/Saki is challenged on this. I believe quite enough of the community's time has been wasted on this. And, Xe has demonstrated should not be engaged in any sort of Original Reporting, especially interviews. Perhaps wikt:transcript or w:transcript might be good starting points in learning what an interview is. Then again, I am utterly unconvinced in relation to Xyr inability to even produce an MP3 audio file.-- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk • main talk 21:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Vote struck, per comments below and this being highlighted to me at as early a point as possible in IRC. See followup vote. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Please give me a little time, I will try to convert that audio file into Ogg format. --Saki (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, it plays fine in VLC on a Mac. I know it's not free, but I don't think the specific format he made it available in is a big deal.    Tris   21:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Okay, as for the audio formats or whatever, deal with it. It's Saki's responsibility to provide audio, which he did, if in a little...unorthodox...way. It's not his responsibility to make sure everyone on earth can listen to it. As far as I can see, the audio is there (I for one can listen to it within my browser), so Saki's done what he needs to. If your system can't handle it, that's your problem, not his. C628 (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Where audio has generally been recorded from interviews in the past, it has been uploaded on Commons. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • In any case, there's absolutely no point worrying about the audio now. Saqib/Saki has already done quite enough damage. I cannot accept, given Xyr past history, that this was not deliberate. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk • main talk 09:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Uhuh. If Saki really wanted to damage the project, there would have been much easier ways to do it than to take all the time necessary to set up an interview, record it, and post it on wiki. I feel the problems resulting from all this were more due to cluelessness, not malice. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
  • So, Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by the "actor" being a clueless fucking idiot. Right? A little beating with a cluestick with spikes through it should go a long way then? --Brian McNeil / talk 19:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep as per previous convention - if we make a mistake and publish something we shouldn't have, it's better to issue a {{correction}} notice or similar rather than "sweep things under the rug", so to speak. We should be more careful with how we treat OR and verifiability, though. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
    Blank with correction notice but leave original text in history, after some consideration. I feel there should be some acknowledgment from us that the interview was held unprofessionally, etc, in the form of {{correction}}. At the same time, I dislike "sweeping things under the rug", and would advocate keeping the text publicly available in history, as long as it is made explicitly clear it is not up to our standards (this is as per previous convention, like this article). I am still not sufficiently convinced that it needs to be completely obliterated. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. In our ethics draft we state our duty to our sources to minimise harm and not misrepresent - both of which we appear to be failing in this article. There are several other failures by Wikinews of its ethics in this article, but the stricture to protect your sources trumps all the other arguments for deletion. I strongly regret this article was ever published, but it is a clear duty to remove this article at this point. - Amgine | t 14:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tempodivalse. The intention of this article was evidently not a direct infringement on the credibility of Wikinews. As mentioned above, if Saki wanted to damage the project, there are more effective ways of doing so. With some reworking, the article can be made more appropriate for the project. Tyrol5 (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per comment from Amgine above. This violates our collective responsibility, as journalists, to a source. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep The fact that the interviewee was "uncomfortable" is not a good reason to delete this article. In fact, I think a good interview is one that takes the subject out of their comfort zone. Benny the mascot (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Are you for-real? Seriously? Have you even attempted to read the dross that Saqib thought might be suitable for publication and slapped a {{review}} template on? It certainly was not an "uncomfortable experience" because he was asking probing, difficult, or challenging questions. The apparent attempt was to produce a feelgood/PR-esque interview for the furtherance of Xyr on-wiki career. Your reasoning behind your keep vote is utterly wikt:specious. I will lay out what my 'detective work' and life experience suggests off-wiki. I assume you know where to find me. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
You seem to have forgotten that I was the first reviewer to copyedit the transcript, once Saki informed us that Ms. Hayashi gave us permission to correct her grammar. I know exactly what the interview says, and while I'm still not happy with the grammar, I believe that it's a perfectly legitimate interview. As for her complaint, "uncomfortable" can mean many different things. Perhaps I don't quite understand what all the fuss is about, but I'll start listening to the entire audio file if that will make you happier. Benny the mascot (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh, no. I have not forgotten that. But, had you listened to the audio at that point? Had you seen a transcript? Had you, to put it in more simple terms, done due diligence? --Brian McNeil / talk 19:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
No, I never listened to the audio at that time, as it had not been made available. Honestly, I don't see what's wrong with the interview at all. The OR notes are in order, and we have an audio recording and an image that proves that the image that took place. Furthermore, discussion on WN:AAA and WN:CU concluded that any wrongdoing Saki did two years ago was petty vandalism that may now be ignored. Benny the mascot (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I'll assume it is a severe lack of life experience on your part caused you to post the above comment, and decline to bluntly express what I believe it says about you. Just a word of advice, if you go out into the wider world with this assume-people-are-generally-good attitude you'll be ripped off and screwed over until you have, in a quite expensive manner, learned to be a better judge of character. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk • main talk 21:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Blank then post correction notice -- clarifying my vote. We'll post the correction notice to let people know what happened, and blanking allows curious readers to actually read the text of the interview. Benny the mascot (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • delete The interview was done under questionable circumstances (the user was indef-blocked when he did the interview, that really does not speak well to Saki's credability). I think if the interviewee wants the thing deleted we should oblige. With that said, just because someone wants their interview deleted, does not mean it should be, but in this case I think it should. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Note, I'm ok with BRS's plan of deleting, and then putting a notice where the article used to be. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, unfortunately, per Cirt, Amgine, Brianmc. I would not object to a correction or keeping it had this article not been published in its admittedly sorry state so long ago, but right now, I'm not sure if a correction is even workable. —fetch·comms 23:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Recreate with just a retraction notice (using {{Correction}}; I suggest label=Retraction), per suggestion by BRS.
(I wasn't sure whether to use a keep icon or a delete icon on this, so I went with the one BRS had used.) --Pi zero (talk) 15:04, 8 July 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.


June 1, 2010 [edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is Created Blockade of the Gaza Strip, associated category, deleted, and recategorised all relevant articles. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Brian McNeil

Category:Gaza Blockade [edit]

I simply cannot see this ever, realistically, having enough articles to justify its existence. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

  • Under what criteria? Mrchris (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • At the time I looked, it appeared to be a category without sufficient articles; and, one unlikely to end up with such. Now, I'm not so sure - but it is miscapitalized. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
* Maybe Category:Blockade of Gaza 18:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)~
  • I agreed with Brian, but searching has produced ten articles that fit in. You could possibly argue it was too much of a fork, but I'd disagree with that. Mrchris: It is standard not to have categories with very few articles in them. The lowest anyone ever holds is three; some say five. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
    • It is a bit of a fork. 18:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)~

Votes [edit]

  • Remove per McNeil. --Diego Grez return fire 17:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep There are enough articles. Benny the mascot (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep To my surprise, though I possibly should have expected it, I found eight articles to add to the two already there. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep as creator. Although maybe Category:Gaza Strip would do the job. Mrchris (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep, I think it's a legitimate category. However, it needs to be renamed to something less encyclopedic; how about "Blockades of Gaza"? Tempodivalse [talk] 18:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep if there are 8 articles, well thats more than enough. Should it be 2008-2010 Blockade of Gaza? maybe (or whenever this blockade started i think it was 2008 or 2007) Bawolff ☺☻ 18:44, 1 June 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.

Septeber 20, 2010 [edit]

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 Blood Red Sandman

Template:Read talk page [edit]

Out of date, useless now. All issues with an article should either be fixed by the reviewer or cause a review fail depending on severity. EzPR forces you to read the talk page now anyway. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

  • Remove Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove --Brian McNeil / talk 05:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove Wackywacedictaphone 10:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove red-thunder. 10:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep I didn't know this existed, but now I want to use it on articles that aren't yet submitted for review. --InfantGorilla (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove per nom. @InfantGorilla: Try copying the wikicode somewhere into your userspace, seeing as this DR is gonna delete it. --Diego Grez return fire 00:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove — Definitely delete. This template has been superseded by the various templates linked to the review process. Gopher65talk 13:23, 24 September 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.


September 19, 2010 [edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is Userfy. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Tyrol5

Test main leads [edit]

The Template: namespace is not some personal plaything, and that appears to be all these were used for or ever intended for. This nom involves: Template:Test lead one, Template:Test lead two, Template:Test lead three, Template:Test lead four & Template:Test lead five. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 13:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

Votes [edit]

  • Remove Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 13:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove If test leads are to be kept, they should be userfied. Tyrol5 (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove Wackywacedictaphone 13:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove or move to userspace. red-thunder. 14:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment- OK. I've userfied the leads. However, the reason why I made them as regular templates is because they are open to anyone who would want to make similar stuff. --Shankarnikhil88 (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm finding some problems when trying to rename the leads or updating them. They simply won't show up on many of the sites. Could someone please make an automatic redirect or help me with this stuff, as the content won't show up when I put a simple {{User:Shankarnikhil88/test lead one}}. --Shankarnikhil88 (talk) 15:51, 19 September 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.


Sept 16, 2010 [edit]

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 Blood Red Sandman

File:Cos-bear-san-diego-police-department.jpg [edit]

Image violates WN:FU, copied from ValleyWag (tech news/blog), original ostensibly clipped from police image. - Amgine | t 18:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

  • AFAIK WN:FU bans images produced by competing news organizations. As Kevyn said, this was ostensibly produced for publicity by a law enforcement agency, not by Valley Wag. I don't understand Amgine's claim that this is not allowed here. --InfantGorilla (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I beleive the way it works is that we should source it directly from the police, and not the media org's copy of the police material. Which is a massive and moronic PITA, but as Amgine has read much of the case law behind this I expect him of all people to get the stupid bits right. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 13:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
    <nod> In fact, if *we* were to crop it from the original source we'd be fine. The problem is the process of cropping the image for news involves creative license, which creates a new and unique image which accrues its own copyright. (I haven't read most of the case law, but I've read quite a bit.) - Amgine | t 17:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Just for the record, I cropped the image directly from the Tulsa Police Dept.'s Public Information Flier, which is how I had credited it. I downloaded the flier from Fox23.com. At no time did I copy it from gawker.com, and I have no idea how or why Gawker.com is listed as the source. I didn't upload the image myself, because I don't have permission to upload non-free images. So User:InfantGorilla uploaded it for me (thank you). But I didn't realize that the credits had been changed (presumably by InfantGorilla). So am I to understand that if the image is re-uploaded as a non-free fair use image from the version I cropped from the flier ( http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4090/4993399035_790e867bd3_m.jpg ) that it would be permissible? I'd need someone else do do this, because I still only have the upload link that goes to Commons. Kevyn (talk) 06:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Now I am even more confused (by Amgine's follow up). Kevyn did the cropping, but took the flier from a news organization (not gawker, which was just my guess, but fox23). Where does this leave us? Presumably copying publicity info from Fox23 is as bad as copying from Gawker (which no-one did). However, I think the question is moot, as the article was published without the photo, and it is too late to add it. --InfantGorilla (talk) 13:02, 21 September 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 delete. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by gopher65 NOTE: This shouldn't have been DRed. I speedied it.

September 10, 2010 [edit]

Energy Trader Danny Gannon [edit]

Not news. Kayau (talk · contribs) 11:18, 10 September 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.


August 31, 2010 [edit]

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 Blood Red Sandman

Category:2007 ING Taipei Marathon [edit]

Under-populated and Time-based, thus will never see any new articles. Content can be moved to Category:ING Taipei Marathon. --Elekhh (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC).

Comments [edit]

Votes [edit]

Please vote using Keep, Remove, Neutral, or Comment followed by signature

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.


August 30,2010 [edit]

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 Blood Red Sandman

Category:2007 Taipei 101 Run Up [edit]

  • So under-populated as to be useless. Time-based, thus will never see any new articles. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:46, 30 August 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 delete. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Pi zero

Category:Fine art [edit]

Ambiguous term, unlikely to be useful. Content would be better placed in Category: Visual art and/or Category: Art. --Elekhh (talk) 13:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC).

Comments [edit]

Votes [edit]

Please vote using Keep, Remove, Neutral, or Comment followed by signature

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 kept as no consensus. After seven days, it's been suggested we move the discussion to the water cooler. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Pi zero

Category:Visual art [edit]

//en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Visual_art&redirect=no I don't necessarily expect this to be deleted, but ever since it was created (2005), it has 'redirected' to Category:Fine art. Unfortunately, redirects don't work with categories, for technical reasons.

The topics overlap, but clearly aren't identical. (As of earlier today) there were four articles in the visual category and not in the fine one.

Therefore we need to decide whether to keep it, delete it (and move the articles in it to another category), or deprecate it (adding {{Deprecated category}} and again moving the articles). I don't recall writing arts articles so I am not really qualified to decide.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 07:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

  • Comment I think Category:Visual art should be retained and made a subcategory of Art, as it is the more widely used term, while Category:Fine art should be deleted, as a less widely used and more ambiguous term. This would be also consistent with the respective Commons and Wikipedia categories (Category Fine arts has been deleted in 2006 on the English Wikipedia) as well as the Wikipedia Portal. —Elekhh (talk) 08:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


  • Comment The way I see it, Elekhh is taking Category:Art to refer to "the arts". We already have Category:Culture and entertainment, which deals with the arts. Music, drama, poetry etc all belong there; pretty much everything there can be described as 'an art' except perhaps pornography, meaning such a use for an art category would create a duplicate of culture and entertainment (noting that there are, naturally, very few porn stories). Therefore, the only use for separate cats would be to break up the arts into their various subdivisions. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
    • No, clearly Games, History, Religion, Television are Culture&Entertainment but not Art. The currently uncategorized Food could be also included in Culture. Indeed Film and Literature could fall in either, and current content is more on the Entertainment side. Yet I stand by what I said: using double standards for Sport vs Art conveys a clear message about WikiNews priorities, while deleting a category which is potentially useful for interested readers is only likely to discourage participation. -—Elekhh (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Sports cats are easily maintained because everyone understands what they are about. Art is... well, another ball game, no pun intended. It has to be something the layman can get their head round. A productive way forward might be to get everyone to sit down and spend a few days hashing out exact definitions for what is acceptable in the cat, to be posted on the category page. (For the avoidance of doubt, I can conced the last point on similarity/differences between cats). I am too tired right now to even think of working out a stance on what might be workable; maybe tomorrow. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 00:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
        • You mean readers cannot understand the difference between ballet and painting? And wasn't Wikimedia's aim to share knowledge? And the fact that a featured portal dedicated to Visual Arts on Wikipedia can direct readers here is irrelevant? Anyway, I am also very tired, and will take a wikibreak for a while.—Elekhh (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
          • A helpful sentence or so describing each category can go a long way in avoiding misunderstandings. The more the categories are used correctly, and the less they're used incorrectly, the more useful they will be. (And I'm turning in for the night, too.) --Pi zero (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
          • That's not what I said, and I suspect you know it. "And[sic] the fact that a featured portal dedicated to Visual Arts on Wikipedia can direct readers here is irrelevant?" Please see WN:NOT. Is, say, drama visual? I would say so; generally, you look at it. However, you also listen to it, and some dramas are entirely spoken. This problem repeats itself over and over; it is not insurmountable, but it will require some thought. Might I recommend closing this DR and moving this dicussion to WN:WC? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

Please vote using Keep, Remove, Neutral, or Comment followed by signature

  • Remove immediately. This is part of culture and entertainment, very likely to be poorly maintained, and not essential to the functioning of Wikinews. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove per above. red-thunder. 11:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Visual art, as a sub of Category:Art of course, and
  • remove Category:Fine art, which is only going to be an obstacle to cleaning up the Art subtree — both needlessly creating controversies over the loaded word "fine", and lumping together stuff that it would be more useful to keep separate; for example, this is obviously visual, and by my understanding of the technical term it is in fact fine art, but there would be less drama in calling it "visual"; and drama is also a fine art, but I'd rather not mix it with Van Gogh — and
  • make Category:Graphic art a subcategory of Visual art.
--Pi zero (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep, as a real category. Move articles from Category:Fine art to Category:Visual art. There are too few articles for it to be worth user's trouble navigating an overlap. Articles on photography and indigenous crafts (for example) are more easily found in a visual art category. --InfantGorilla (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove Pointless category, use Art instead. Diego Grez return fire 17:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep I think it would be beneficial to diversify WikiNews coverage on Arts and in that regard the category is and will be useful. --—Elekhh (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove - Almost all art is visual. Wikinews is not yet big enoudh to justify such a confusing and clunky category system. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 11:07, 5 September 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.


August 12, 2010 [edit]

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 Blood Red Sandman

Underpopulated India cats [edit]

Cleanup time: Needless cats with very few articles. Category:Visakhapatnam, Category:Chennai, Category:Vadodara and Category:Assam. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

Votes [edit]

  • Support, but not because we should not, at some point, have these categories. They simply should not be embarassingly empty. If you don't like it, there is an answer. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove —Mikemoral♪♫ 00:17, 17 August 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.

August 3, 2010 [edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Gopher65

Category:Government [edit]

In some cases, the scope of this category may be hard to define. In addition, it's redundant with Cat:Politics and conflicts. Benny the mascot (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

Votes [edit]

  • Remove, empty now anyway. —fetch·comms 21:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove redundant/encyclopedic --SVTCobra 00:35, 4 August 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.

July 30, 2010 [edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is keep. I don't see any any rush of users coming forward to overturn the last DR; I would want a strong consensus that community opinion had changed were I to delete this. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Blood Red Sandman

File:Humalagarcia.jpg [edit]

Used in Alan Garcia wins Peruvian presidential election (June 2006)

Source is http://www.kaosenlared.net/img2/2006a/16842_humalagarcia.jpg

According to Google Translate, http://www.kaosenlared.net/nota_legal.php says in part: "The images, used as a citation and / or as an expression of today, may be subject to other licenses."

  1. I don't see any license for the image at the source website
  2. The archived article is 2006, pre-dating the 'Exemption Doctrine Policy'
  3. Since it is "replaceable", policy does not permit us to keep it as 'fair use', even for archived articles

--InfantGorilla (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

  • Comment — I'll note that this image has already gone through the DR process here. Please read the associated discussion. Gopher65talk 15:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

Please vote using Keep, Remove, Neutral, or Comment followed by signature

  • Remove needs a demonstrative free license before Wikinews can use. --SVTCobra 00:35, 4 August 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 delete. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Blood Red Sandman

Category:U.S. DOD and Category:U.S. Air Force [edit]

These two cats were created by a new author for C-17 crashes near air force base in Alaska (published today), so currently that is the only member. Naturally, there are hundreds, if not thousands of existing articles that qualify to be in these categories.

However, unlike other MediaWiki websites, we don't make intersection categories, as we can create the same effect in a portal or infobox simply by requesting an intersection. So, for U.S. DOD, we can ask for articles that are both in Category:United States and Category:Military. U.S. Air Force isn't really the same as adding Category:Aviation to those two, but I think a U.S. military aviation infobox would be equally as interesting as a USAF one.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 05:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

Votes [edit]

Please vote using Keep, Remove, Neutral, or Comment followed by signature

  • Remove encyclopedic not news categories. --SVTCobra 00:35, 4 August 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.


July 16, 2010 [edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Gopher65

Category:Issues [edit]

Normally deleted via SD as an empty category, but it's currently empty because I had already removed its contents: Category:Hrant Dink and Category:Creationism. I feel that this category is unneeded, because defining what an "issue" is can get really subjective. Benny the mascot (talk) 19:56, 16 July 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 delete. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Benny the mascot

Category:Transport in India [edit]

Per community consensus that intersection categories are undesirable. If the result of this DR is delete, then the closing admin should ensure that the articles in this category are placed in Category:Transport and Category:India. Benny the mascot (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

Votes [edit]

  • Remove, not necessary and we don't have any other similar Transportation in <country> categories. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep It's got 7 articles. It seems to have a use. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 21:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove I feel categories should stand on their own, and we should use DPL to intersect them. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove per Bawolff. Diego Grez return fire 22:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove Tyrol5 (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove. Category intersection for the win. the wub "?!" 21:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Zot! --Brian McNeil / talk 04:58, 21 July 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/Q3&oldid=1116606"