Wikinews:Deletion requests/Archives/2011/Q2

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

Contents

June 28, 2011 [edit]

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

Wikinews:Story preparation/Tens of thousands protest government in Belgrade, Serbia [edit]

This was created in February, tagged as abandoned but then moved into story prep in case more protests happened in April. Whether they did or not, it's now the end of June. --Bencherlite (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC).

Comments [edit]

  • Comment Oops, sorry, I'd been meaning to take care of this, and then it just slipped my mind. --Pi zero (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

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 delete. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Tyrol5

Wikinews:Story preparation/Flash floods hit mainland Britain [edit]

In the event of flash floods hitting the UK, I suspect someone will start a new article from scratch, rather than think "Oh, hang on, isn't there a skeleton of an article from 2007 kicking around somewhere?" --Bencherlite (talk) 08:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC).

Comments [edit]

Votes [edit]

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

Remove - agree with nom ... prep from 2007 is useless. --SVTCobra 23:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove I've never quite understood this one's original purpose. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 10:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove Reading the revision history, all text was by IPs. My guess is it exists because it was never quite speediable and nobody who noticed it ever wanted it gone enough to bother with a DR. --Pi zero (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, the Admin's talk page or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


May 10, 2011 [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 the wub

Wikinews:Community Mirror [edit]

An utterly obsolete idea that never got off the ground; made redundant by FlaggedRevs. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments, votes etc [edit]

  • Remove as nom Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Exterminate! --Brian McNeil / talk 18:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep this already has the {{historical}} tag ... there is a great fondness for keeping a trail of the Wikinews evolution (at least there was when I was active). --SVTCobra 01:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep This represents a part of our history and should be kept with the {{historical}} tag. --Cspurrier (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep This is the first time I've ever heard of this, but I see no reason to delete old documents that don't cause problems. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep for historical reasons. Mattisse (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. I could understand the historical argument if it were an old policy, but as far as I can make out, it's just an idea some user had, that never took off the ground. There's no reason to keep what is essentially a malformed, incomplete, failed proposal that will never see relevance in the future. — μchip08 11:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to a subpage of Craig's userspace. No need to delete anything that some people feel has historical value. sj (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep it and move it to the user's place, No need to remove it--Superlightoftruth (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, the Admin's talk page or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


May 4, 2011 [edit]

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

Wikinews:General disclaimer Wikinews:TLDR [edit]

This is "Wikipedia-esque", and could be construed as saying we're unreliable. That makes an utter nonsense of all the work done to introduce independent review.

This page should never have been imported from Wikipedia, seemingly in violation of their copyright terms, and should be removed in short order. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussed briefly in irc:wikimedia; legal counsel notified. — μchip08 21:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

  • comment response to Tempo's vote below The wording is at-odds with how Wikinews operates; it is, additionally, a "technical" copyvio as a direct import from Wikipedia. It should be completely reworked to reflect reality - if retained. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, I didn't say it shouldn't be reworked; that might be a good idea actually, although I strongly feel the general gist of the disclaimer should remain. Look at the BBC or Al Jazeera, they all have similar disclaimers as an extra precaution to prevent liability. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Let me have a look at MSM disclaimers... --Brian McNeil / talk 16:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
    The general disclaimer is necessary per the software; I believe it is also necessary per WMF legal counsel but that should be clarified. This wording should likely be improved/replaced. I believe I did an initial round of disclaimers, primarily drawn from WP, around this time - they should all be reviewed en masse. - Amgine | t 22:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Wikipedia does have a goal to have accurate, encyclopedic information. One knowledgeable user can contribute to an article on his own by adding relevant, sourced information relatively easily - what makes accuracy difficult to guarantee is mainly the wiki's size, in addition to being open to public. Wikinews tries to deliver news in a neutral manner - that is something one user can not always do on his own. This is why flagged revisions system is in place. However it does not elevate the neutrality of the news in any way since they are by their nature debatable, and it is not uncommon for the sources to be are one-sided. This is why, in my opinion, even despite the work of a few people on one news story, the disclaimer stays relevant. Gryllida 09:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Although I agree that a disclaimer is needed, a note is in order concerning wp, wn, and flaggedrevs. Wp aspires to upward-trending accuracy. It does not aspire to reliability (it explicitly does not aspire to reliability): the intended upward trend in accuracy assumes averaging out fluctuations over short periods of time. Flaggedrevs, besides making it possible to enforce the requirement of peer review (which is necessary for us to be news site rather than blog, no matter how respected might be the primary author of an article), also makes it possible to present our general readership with a version of the article that is not subject to uncontrolled short-term fluctuations (such as, in the extreme, vandalism). --Pi zero (talk) 12:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. iirc this was bought over back when we used the same licences, back in our really early days. We have always thus had this around Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 08:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Disclaimers in the MSM [edit]
  1. CNN's; section 6 of T+C.
  2. Al Jazeera's; section 6 of T+C
  • Comment I will, for the time being, be bold and make a couple of edits to "tone down" the we're unreliable aspect of the disclaimer. Beyond that, I'm pleased to see there's a wide consensus for a rewrite. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment From a legal perspective, we definitely need to maintain a disclaimer on the site that retains the substance of the present disclaimer. There is no doubt that the Wikinews community has earned a well-deserved reputation for accuracy, but mistakes can always happen and we need to be clear that liability does not lie with us if there is an error. The other parts of the disclaimer are also relevant to Wikinews. I would therefore hesitate making any substantive changes. Geoffbrigham (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

  • Remove as nominator. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep, this page is built-into the list of links that shows at the bottom of every page. Most reputable news sites have a disclaimer notice, and we need to have one too. It's a legal thing, to prevent potential frivolous lawsuits by people who said "Hey, I was mislead by a wrong article/blah blah". Don't quote me on this, but I think all WMF projects might be required to have a disclaimer actually. All projects on the wiki farm AFAICS have them, and we could draw some unwanted attention from the office if we zapped it. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Total rewrite. I'm utterly unconcerned wether or not the delete button is hit, but I suggest actually having something to replace it before doing so if it is deleted. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep You may have issues with the text of the disclaimer, but (as a non-lawyer) I would speculate that removing this page would have significant legal or financial implications beyond your stated purpose . The page should not be removed or significantly altered without input from the WMF counsel. Until then the onus is on the nominator to show that removing this page does no harm. Also, I see no justification for your assertion that such a disclaimer reduces credibility. Other reputable media sources have similar disclaimers. Supporters of the RfD must first show that having such a disclaimer reduces credibility in the mind of a typical user. NeilK (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep, without opposition to a rewrite, provided a rewrite is allowed under WMF rules - I expect we would need the input of the WMF legal counsel. DENDODGE 22:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep - a) I personally think the general disclaimer is well written and accurately describe us (minor points don't address flagged revisions as it perhaps should, but the main drift is correct and accurate). b) This is a legal document and should be under the purview of wmf legal folks, not the community. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Gryllida 08:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Draft a replacement, clear it with legal counsel, and delete the old The current version both is phrased in a way insulting to our procedures, and seems to be itself a technical copyvio. We should replace it and then delete the old version, but we definitely mustn't do the replacement until we've cleared the new version with legal counsel. --Pi zero (talk) 12:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep, without opposition to a rewrite (after Dendodge). Whether Brian McNeil, InfantGorilla or anyone else writes or reviews an article, I don't want to give an implied warranty that could be enforced for monetary damages. Also I don't want to risk tinkering with the foundation's safe harbor protection without permission from the foundation. (I suspect a technical consequence of deletion would be a red link on every page unless we got a Developer to remove the link from skins/Monobook.php .) (See also //en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:General_disclaimer&oldid=86303#Examples_of_other_news_service_disclaimers ) --InfantGorilla (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite - don't delete without replacement. These disclaimers have always been a bit freeform on the various projects, and could use improvement. A rewrite is certainly 'allowed' -- the disclaimer pages on various projects were not developed initially by WMF counsel, but over time by contributors - though I expect WMF legal staff have looked at some of the English-language disclaimers from time to time. Getting input from current counsel is a good idea. Personally, I would love to see us lose the bold text which you should presumably read more carefully than all that other text. sj (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2011 (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.


2 May, 2011 [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

Wikinews:Story preparation [edit]

As {{stale}} isn't actually an speedy deletion criteron:

— μchip08 22:22, 1 May 2011 (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.


April 25, 2011 [edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is No consensus to delete the category. A merge with CAT:Food may be possible.. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Diego Grez

Category:Drink, Portal:Drink, Wikinews:Wikinews Importer Bot/Drink [edit]

It's always great to see benevolent sororal interest (in the spirit of w:WP:SISTER). Unfortunately, the category is unpopulated and pretty sure to stay that way. These pages were recently created by User:Jerem43, a well-established Wikipedian (circa 40,000 edits since 2006), and the DPL is imported to w:Portal:Drink. I'd certainly like it if there were an alternative approach for the importer, but I don't see one. --Pi zero (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Votes, comments, etc. [edit]

  • Keep - I just checked those pages and they are populated. --Jerem43 (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you notified the Wikipedia people? — μchip08 14:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

w:User talk:Jerem43#Wikinews Drink. --Pi zero (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
If we're keeping "Food" and "Drink" as separate categories, we may wish to create category "Food and drink" as a parent for both, as this would likely help us remember to consider these possibilities when categorizing. Curiously enough, Wikipedia has a category "Food and drink", but not "Food" or "Drink". (The latter are both soft redirects, "Food" to "Foods" and "Drink" to "Beverages".) --Pi zero (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep per Fetchcomms finding enough to make them worthwhile. Neutral on creating Category:Feck and Category:Arse. the wub "?!" 17:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete: These are encyclopedic categories, not news categories. People do not search news for 'drink', though they might search for 'drunk'. Not an encyclopedia. - Amgine | t 18:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
My practical concern is with our ability to usefully maintain categories (in regard to which I'm mostly studying the problem cases, in search of general remedies that might be applied, only occasionally attempting to fix individual glitches). Category:Drink does concern me in this regard. We do well with categories for areas (countries, cities, whatever), people, and organizations, and to some extent events (the Deepwater Horizon oil spill is one I've been around a lot lately, e.g.), but any category outside those classes should come with clear inclusion criteria and, ideally, some sort of recipe for manually checking to bring it up to date if it's slipped. --Pi zero (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
People don't search news for "United Kingdom", "Politics and conflicts" or pretty much any of our categories - that's not what they're for. Where they are extremely useful is creating a custom feed for elsewhere, as on the WP portal. Admittedly there aren't many articles, but if the Drinks WikiProject have a problem with that they can come and help out - and I placed a message to that effect. the wub "?!" 22:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Are you saying we are maintaining our categories for Wikipedia, the wub? - Amgine | t 23:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Of course it's not just for Wikipedia. And really, is it all that much effort to "maintain" a single category? Seems like almost as much effort to delete it if you ask me. the wub "?!" 00:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, some categories are really problematic to maintain, while others are quite easy to maintain. Area cats can be pretty easy to maintain, because it occurs to people that they do, or at least that they might, exist. But contrast that with, say, Category:Targeted killing, which I find it hard to believe can be maintained well in the long run because it wouldn't occur to people that it might exist, so they'd be unlikely to add relevant articles to it. I haven't nominated that one for deletion because I'd want to investigate its backstory before doing so; but Category:Drink is a newly minted category and I felt more comfortable with my understanding of its backstory. --Pi zero (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
A quote from the relevant portion of WN:NOT:
Wikinews is not an encyclopedia; that is, it is not an in-depth collection of non-newsworthy information. Just because something is a true fact doesn't mean it is suitable for inclusion here.
Another important quote from WN:NOT is:
When you wonder what should or should not be in an article named "whatever", ask yourself what a reader would expect under "whatever" from a trusted news provider.
(all emphasis removed,to avoid biasing.) May I ask anyone here to point to a trusted news provider who maintains categories such as Drink or Targeted killing? Or even tags articles that way? - Amgine | t 20:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully it's clear by now I'm not a fan of either of those two categories. However, those two quoted passages don't come into my thinking on this, because they are about the information content of articles, and categorization is not information content of articles. I want categorization to enhance us as a news site, so when it doesn't I look for a remedy, hence my discomfort with those two categories; but if it does enhance us, I'm not fussed whether it would also enhance an encyclopedia, nor whether it is or isn't something other news sites do. --Pi zero (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, I don't see the relevance of those quotes here.
One of the elements of our mission statement is that Wikinews will "provide an alternative to proprietary news agencies like the Associated Press or Reuters; that is, it will allow independent media outfits to get a high quality feed of news free of charge to complement their own reporting." This is what I'm really thinking about for these categories. And yes, Reuters does break down its stories into very fine categories for the benefit of its feed consumers - in fact they have three separate categories for beverages ([1] [2] [3]). I'm not sure about AP, their categories don't seem to be publically viewable. the wub "?!" 22:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete per Amgine. Though the proposal to create a "Foods and beverages" is kind of good. アンパロ Io ti odio! 21:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep — per The wub. None of our categories are useful for searching, but that isn't their purpose (that's what Google is for, frankly, and we're not here to compete with them, even if we could). The purpose of these categories is to categorize articles (shockingly!) by general archetypes, mostly for external feeds. I actually can't think of a single internal use for (content based, non-technical) categories on Wikinews at the moment. Maybe one day when portals become more important... Gopher65talk 05:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Food and drink would, as a sub-category of Health, make a great deal of sense - and do so from a news POV in addition to an encyclopedic one. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Now that's an excellent point: as a subcategory of Culture and entertainment, it's fluff (the appropriate Wikibooks sister link would be Wikibooks:Cookbook), but as a subcategory of Health, it's news. --Pi zero (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I was bold and placed both Category:Food and Category:Drink into Health, notwithstanding the outcome of this discussion. Frankly I'm baffled as to why they weren't there before. the wub "?!" 22:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak delete I consider drink to be a type of food. I think both should be covered under Category:Food. (I also think the cat should keep being named food and not be renamed). Bawolff ☺☻ 02:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge this category into "Food" to make "Food and drink", it's the most logical and useful solution. If that's not possible, Keep per arguments above. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:11, 4 May 2011 (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 Diego Grez

Category:Bombardier Canadair Regional Jet and Category:Bombardier Group [edit]

The first category is encyclopedic; its parent cat could in theory be of use but I don't believe the situation has changed since I created similar for Airbus and Boeing - Bombardier lacks the article count to justify it, having only one or two possible candidates. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 10:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Votes, comments etc [edit]

  • Delete— μchip08 10:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Zap! --Brian McNeil / talk 10:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete, useless and very unlikely to be populated. —fetch·comms 16:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete as far too specialised for categories. the wub "?!" 17:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove per avove アンパロ Io ti odio! 21:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep — note that Canadair Regional Jet = CRJ. So all those stories about CRJ-700s and CRJ-200s (made by Bombardier) could populate one of those categories. A simple google search for CRJ on this site turned up 3 articles about CRJs in the first page of results. I didn't investigate further, but even those articles alone would be enough to keep a Bombardier (or CRJ) category. Gopher65talk 05:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm reluctant to start categorising articles on aviation accidents and incidents by the model of aircraft involved. I'd certainly oppose doing so by the aircraft manufacturer. (Side-note: The manufacturer will always play a role in investigations, however; reporting on that role would make them an intrinsic part of the story and hence eligible for the cat.) This is mainly an intuitive thing on my part, though others may feel more strongly. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, the Admin's talk page or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is speedy delete (empty category). Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Mikemoral

Category:Bombardier DeHavilland Canada Dash 8 [edit]

This is an encyclopedic category, not a news category. It has no articles in it. --SVTCobra 00:25, 25 April 2011 (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.

April 21, 2011 [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 Mikemoral

Category:Americas [edit]

This is an unused and useless complication to the category hierarchy. It was created during a proposal to merge the three Americas into one portal, which didn't happen; in the unlikely event we ever decide it's worth the huge hassle to do that, we can easily recreate (or undelete) it; and meanwhile it's (as I said at the top) just clutter in the category hierarchy. --Pi zero (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2011 (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.


April 19, 2011 [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 Mikemoral

File:Fidel Castro 102006.jpg [edit]

Isn't Cubavisión a competing news organization (it's a Cuban TV channel, but anyway...) アンパロ Io ti odio! 02:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

Votes [edit]

  • Remove Does not qualify for fair use (unless we claim historical importance... or something) アンパロ Io ti odio! 02:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol userfy vote.svg Replace with a free image. — μchip08 02:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove Whatever the source, this is not a screen-shot. So at best it is mis-labeled. --SVTCobra 02:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Unless the image is violating copyright, I think it should be kept. The fact that Cubavision is a "competing news source" is a reg herring, again, unless there is a legitimate copyright issue.Tadpole256 (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
    WN:FU — μchip08 13:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove Cubavision is, indeed, a competing news organization. That being the case, we don't actually need a DR for this; it could be speedy-deleted. Cf. WN:SD#I1, WN:FU#Fair use on Wikinews. --Pi zero (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove; though I note that very rarely it is appropriate to use an image from a competing news source - but only if the image itself is central to the story (e.g. the newspaper was prosecuted for it). Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol userfy vote.svg Replace or Remove. WN:FU is clear. —fetch·comms 02:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove. We probably don't want to replace it directly, as all the articles it is used in are archived. the wub "?!" 22:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, the Admin's talk page or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


April 18, 2011 [edit]

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

Scientists create schizophrenic brain cells [edit]

Moving discussion here from talk page; suggest retraction notice and revdel as potential options. — μ 22:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC) [edited]

Comments [edit]

Votes [edit]

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

  • Remove %Gryllidatalk 22:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I mean replace with retraction notice, but not history removal. Gryllida 00:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support retraction [if its that bad], but Oppose revision delete. We shouldn't try and cover up how we screwed up. It should be left in the history. There is nothing of a sensitive nature in the article. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Nuke it - needs to be replaced with a retraction notice, and all revisions deleted. There is every reason to revdel it. The words wrong, wrong and wrong on all counts come to mind. BarkingFish (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose revdelete, sweeping things under the rug and grinning is a Bad Thing. Wikinews should be transparent as possible, not hidden behind an opaque wall like the MSM are. I do support the retraction notice. Tempodivalse [talk] 22:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment We're not sweeping it under the rug. We're removing all revisions of an article with potentially misleading data, information of an incorrect nature and making sure it's gone, period. I'd say that's good enough cause to revdel it. BarkingFish (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Um, what you just described *is* "sweeping it under the rug". We need to acknowledge our mistake so readers who read the article can realise that the information wasn't reliable. Tempodivalse [talk] 22:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Retraction notice, but not revdel Since it isn't a copyvio. Though I understand BarkingFish's reasoning that it's not sweeping it under the rug since we're issuing a retraction notice, I do think deletion should be reserved for copyvio and libel.
Noting the remarkable lack of correlation between voting positions and icons, I was tempted to use Neutral. --Pi zero (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep; place {{Correction}} There have been worse mistakes made in the history of this site when it comes to incorrect info. We standby our mistakes. Always have, always will. The only time we delete is per what Tempo says: copyvio, libel and anything Mike Godwin thinks would get WMF and Wikinews in legal hot water. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • What mistakes have been worse? Maybe a hoax being published? Could you give me some examples of "worse". It is not a matter of a little correction. The whole article, based on a press release, is biased, promotes a specific drug and shows a muddled understanding of neurology. Plus contains an irrelevant image, the caption of which I corrected. But it should be removed. Mattisse (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikimedia Foundation announces departure of general counsel Mike Godwin. --Pi zero (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep, of course. {{Correction}} if necessary. <considers cussing that Amgine actually is forced to vote on something.> - Amgine | t 14:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per Amgine's reasoning; this is Wikinews, not the Ministry of Truth. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove Or carefully written correction notice pointing out all the misinformation, including the image. It is more important that articles on medical subjects be accurate and free from bias, as people use that information in their own lives. Promoting a drug and giving false information about a condition afflicting many people should be removed. Even the photo was mislabeled as brain cells and is irrelevant to the article. If a retraction or correct notice is added, care must be taken to give correct neurological information as well as removing the reliance on the press release. The specific drug shout not be mentioned as it is not necessary to describe the facts of the article. There are hundreds of anti-psychotic drugs and the study used only five (chosen how?) The overly optimistic quotes from the researcher should be removed, unless confirmed by another source. It is a very very preliminary study, a test tube study using the skin of four "hereditary" schizophrenics when most people with schizophrenia have no family history. And any real world applications of the findings of this one study, if confirmed, are years and years away. Please read the superior sources the IP provided to see how far off the mark this article is. The importance lies in the procedure and not in the specific drugs. This is a study funded by interest groups, including the pharmaceutical company.
The current article is not correct per today's standards, so it is not a "snapshot" of anything than a factually incorrect, biased article at the time it was written and published, demonstrating wikinews publishes medically inaccurate articles. It is not a small "error" that a little banner can correct. Unless the banner says: "This is an inaccurate and biased article. Please disregard its contents."
Or get rid of this article and write another, correct article using the superior IP sources. It is not stale yet. Mattisse (talk) 22:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep the article history from the memory hole but support a full retraction because of the inaccuracies raised on the talk page, and the concerns about promotion of a particular drug. the wub "?!" 23:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Maybe keep as an example of wikinews worst? Is there a category for that? Mattisse (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Cf. category:Corrected articles Tempodivalse [talk] 23:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
        • You beat me to it, Tempo :-). I tend to think we're better at detecting mistakes now, so the early years of the project are apt to have greater error rate than is observable via the category.
        The point is to own up to our mistakes. Copyvio and libel get deleted; mere mistakes (even awful ones) may be removed from the current revision, but can be viewed in the page history if someone has a reason to go to that trouble. --Pi zero (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2011 (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.


March 26, 2011 [edit]

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

= File:Prof Erantha De Mel.jpg [edit]

File:Prof Erantha De Mel.jpg
Orphaned image, unable to source origin, therefore dubious copyright.

Comments [edit]

Votes [edit]

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

  • Remove. Wortheless image since it is orphaned. Per nom --Nascar1996 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 26 March 2011 (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/2011/Q2&oldid=1255781"