Wikinews:Deletion requests/Archives/Archive1

This archive is closed. If you wish to add a closed deletion request, go to Wikinews:Deletion requests/Archives and find the latest archive.

Deleted

Specific revisions of Wikinews:Getting started

REASON -- potential copyright infringement. Tomos 19:27, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC) Two versions, [1] and [2], seem to contain a large chunk of texts from the source cited at the end. It does not look like a fair use. With Mediawiki 1.4 in place, I believe it is possible to remove those revisions only. Delete the whole thing, and select all but the problematic revisions to restore.

December 3rd, 2004

Category:Orphan Articles

This article will be deleted 10 Dec 2004 if there is a consensus about that.

REASON: This category appears to be pointless.--Eloquence 03:54, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Delete

1. (delete) 119 21:20, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. (delete) The category was my suggestion. Someone has said to me that there is a similar category already, so this category is pointless. Anyway, I suggest you, some way, put in evidence the articles which has been abandoned.--carlosar 11:47 4 Dez 2004 (UTC)

December 5th, 2004

Two test pages

• Wikinews:Weekly by 119
• Sandbox_mockup_of_Main_Page by 119

119 03:55, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 10th, 2004

Podcasting, Tune In and Enjoy!

This article will be deleted after 10 Dec 2004 if there is a consensus about that.

REASON: not an article, see talk.--Eloquence 01:29, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1. (delete) 119 21:20, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. (delete) Wikipropaganda, not news.--Carlosar 12:00, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. (delete) Adveristment. Delete.--Lankiveil 12:41, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC).

3 Speed Automatic release new EP "Project Horizonica"

This article will be deleted 11 Dec 2004 if there is a consensus about that.

REASON:Reads like a press release. 119 05:43, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• (delete) I agree but I think it can be fixed. If someone else fix, maybe it can be published, else it should be deleted. --- Carlosar 01:56, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Peak Oil threatens world economies

This article will be deleted 11 Dec 2004 if there is a consensus about that.

REASON:Almost no content. Posted by an anonymous user and left. 119 05:43, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Delete

1. (delete) ---Carlosar 02:05, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. (delete) Delete, not a worthy stub.--Eloquence 02:20, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. (delete) Not very useful for potential futhre development, not many edits or sign of someone working on it. Tomos 22:11, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
4. (delete) Lankiveil 12:42, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 24th, 2004

Doctors find U.S. President Bush in 'excellent' health

REASON -- Lankiveil 05:50, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC). No content

• ARGUMENTS -- Lankiveil 05:50, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC). See above. The article could potentially be rewritten to have some content other than a bunch of links, but it's not that interesting or newsworthy a topic anyway.

1. (delete) - The article is empty. Carlosar 20:53, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• (comment) The article is empty because Eloquence has already deleted it. See the deletion log available through Special:Log. I personally do not have much problem with this being deleted, though I also think it could be made into an article. Tomos 21:58, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Equifax claims '14 percent savings' with Windows Server over Linux

REASON - copyright violation. I think this article was created as an example of POV difficulty we have to face. And it is a copy from a Microsoft's web page. The web page seemingly is not a press release, either. So I think we should delete it. Tomos 05:49, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1. (delete) - but if someone fix, maybe I change my vote. Carlosar 00:34, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Talk:16,000 protest School of the Americas

This article will be deleted 05 Dec 2004 if there is a consensus about that.

REASON-- Potential copyright violation. ARGUMENTS-- There is a passage taken from Microsoft's web site. It seems it is a promotional material of a kind, but not a press release. So I am afraid it is not something we should not release into the public domain. (The Mediawiki:copyrightwarning says that everything we submit here would be treated as being in the public domain.)

Keep

1. (keep):Is there still a reason to delete this then? Its ready for publishing. Four days after it happened.... :\ -Stevertigo 04:18, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Delete

1. (delete) But can we claim it is a fair use, for example? The impact on the market does not seem to be great, the purpose is kind of research, and portion of the work is not that great, though not that small. I am not sure if a public domain text could contain fair use material, in addition. Tomos 01:37, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. (delete)That passage is at the discussion page. I am the author and I have used it as an example. There are some objections to the passage, I also agree with them and I think it is not worth leaving there, so I will delete it.carlosar Dez 4 11:18 UTC 2004

Note:the polemic passage has been deleted. The rest of the page has not been deleted.

Black Box Voting investigates allegations of election fraud in U.S.

REASON: This is not news. Hopelessly POV at the moment. It could be salvaged, perhaps, but not without a complete delete and rewrite. The actual news story here, though, is not about the election, but about Black Box Voting, and the fact that Bev Harris has been blocked from posting even on Democratic Underground.

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,65928,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_5

Delete

1. (delete) I think it is propaganda.--Carlosar 01:49, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

German police attempt to close FetteMama.com for hate speech

This article was an outright lie at the beginning and has since sat as a corrected but one-sentence article. Listing it here as I expect it will not be edited in the next week and then be obviously dead. 119 03:23, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

January 9, 2005

I Want To Volunteer!

It is an orphan solicitaion for action, not a news article. -- Davodd | Talk 12:14, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Lankiveil 13:22, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC).

Tsunami Help/News Updates

REASON - Potential copyright violation.

• argument: There seems to be a text of news article from AFP inserted in the page. Here is the diff: [3]. If that constitutes a copyright violation, Revision as of 22:16, 29 Dec 2004 to 23:47, 29 Dec 2004 should be deleted. Tomos 00:16, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• delete. MANY copyvios. Davodd | Talk 12:28, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Lankiveil 13:21, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC).
• If you have a problem with something, instead of complaining, you could do something and fix it. --Randy Johnston 23:09, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• (Comment): I think making use of existing content is good, and my deletion request is about those revisions that contain copyright violations, not the whole page. Tomos 04:28, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Specific revisions of Wikinews:Getting started

REASON -- potential copyright infringement. Tomos 19:27, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC) Two versions, [4] and [5], seem to contain a large chunk of texts from the source cited at the end. It does not look like a fair use. With Mediawiki 1.4 in place, I believe it is possible to remove those revisions only. Delete the whole thing, and select all but the problematic revisions to restore.

Amgine notified me that he could not fulfill this request, and I realized that the information given was not good for this request. Oldids that I provided cannot be seen once a page is deleted. So I checked back the restored page and identified the timestamp, which is a useful id info for undeletion. The revisions needing deletion are

• 11:20, 18 Dec 2004 (195.229.241.169)
• 18:20, 18 Dec 2004 (by 69.144.150.163)
• 19:13, 18 Dec 2004 (by Tomos)

Note that the third revision is a mere reversion of the two preceding revisions, and there is no reason to keep it after those revisions are gone. Tomos 01:46, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I checked the page, and confirmed that the three revisions were deleted by Amgine on Jan 9, 2005. Tomos 15:01, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Page history

REASON: Silly redirect, most probably created by accident. Page it redirects to makes no sense. -- Lankiveil 16:18, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Davodd | Talk 16:25, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not seem to be serving any purpose. Tomos 01:09, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 10, 2005

2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami

• REASON: Potential copyright violation (GFDL violation) in some past revisions. I am suggesting deletion of those revisions and the reverting revision only, not the whole page. If it is legally okay to keep copyright violation in the past revision, then I will take back this request. Now I am aware that some people argue that copyright violation in past revisions are legally no problem in the U.S. (See w:Wikipedia:Terms of use#Title_17_United_States_Code_.A7_108_archive_notice). If Wikinews should take this as a kind of official policy, then probably the page revisions do not have to be deleted. But then, it seems that we need to introduce certain notice to contributors and users like the one suggested at English Wikipedia's Terms of use.Tomos 14:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete copyvio past revisions, keep current content. I nominated this for the same reason in the past. We may be able to do this via speedy deltion since the cut-and-paste violation was vandalism or error. May I suggest an admin copies the current page's content to a temp file, speedy deletes the page, re-copies the current content into the cleaned namespace, then delete the temp file. -- Davodd | Talk 22:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• A GFDL Wikipedia document cannot by copyvio'd, but it is inappropriate to copy/paste en masse and there may be Wikinews policy against posting Wikipedia content into a Wikinews article. If so, delete reverted violation via optional undelete if this preserves post-revert edits. However, this Dr did not apply the {{delete}} template, and is the second Dr for this article. - Amgine 19:09, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 1 revisions to 16:07 deleted - Amgine 01:06, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Acting leader of Serbia's Radical Party threatens to go war over Kosovo

• REASON: Likely a copyright violation. The linked B92 page has a copyright notice that is out of date, but unless there is indication that the content is not under copyright, we can assume that it is and that the year on the B92 page is simply old. -- IlyaHaykinson 22:35, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I compared the texts in the B92 with the one contributed to Wikinews. The main text (four paragraphs) seems to be exactly the same except for the last two sentences. The B92 article is dated as Dec 31, 2004, preceding the first posting of the Wikinews article (Jan 2, 2005). So I say it is a probable case of copyright violation. Tomos

Unanimous - Amgine 01:11, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

February 7, 2005

UN force expected for southern Sudan

REASON -- Nothing but BLANK King Ho Cheung 17:20, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• ARGUMENTS --

Article deleted previously as speedy - Amgine 01:36, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bush inaugurated for second term speech

REASON- Cut and Paste source text - belongs in Wikisource, not here. -- Davodd | Talk 16:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Unanimous - Amgine 01:49, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Passed Through

December 24th, 2004

16,000 protest School of the Americas

REASON:Not NPOV article, strong biased (maybe unreliable) source. User: Carlosar 11:45, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Keep

1. (keep) Please remove the deletion request. The alleged issues of bias should be resolved, as there is nothing substantial about the actual event in question that makes it inappropriate for WikiNews, nor is the title inappropriate. If you really are certain there were less than 16,000 present, change the name to 10,000+ protest School of the Americas. CommonDreams.org report 16,000, and I see no reason not to use this figure in the headline, given that the story makes clear that more conservative estimates have also been published. - Simeon
2. (keep)The article should be removed from this category and placed in the review process. The extensive rewrites to tone down bias have gone a long way to making this a news article worthy of further review. --jkrusky 04:15, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. (keep)I think the article can be published now because it shows both points of view.--Carlosar 12:23, 11 Dec 2004

Delete

1. (delete) The title itself is biased, and refers to a desputed fact and therefore the numbers should not be in the title. #The authors have made little changes but no real efforts to remove biased comments. Someone else needs to write this piece from scratch. - chrispet109, Dec 6, 2004.

Note:The title has been changed to: Activists protest against School of the Americas.

NOTE:One keep vote has not been counted because it was anonymous.See history for details.

United States uses napalm in Fallujah

This article will be deleted after 11 Dec 2004 if there is a consensus about that.

REASON -- The claims cannot be corroborated/verified. The article violates NPOV policy Carlosar 19:37, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• ARGUMENTS -- Carlosar 19:37, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) The article claims the USA had used napalm in Iraq. The main source is the newspaper "Aljazeera" which is clearly anti-USA and for-Iraq rebels. The other sources are left-wing magazines which are for-Iraq rebels and anti-USA Iraq politic too. The cited sources are suspectious for me.

Keep

1. (keep) All American news services are pro US and pro occupation. Therefore, if al jazeera can't be cited then neither can American news. I think this article has some interesting things to say, but is poorly written. It should be opened for editing and improvement. The article should be more of a question, "Was napalm used in Fallujah?" And then have for/against. But not having an article because it includes references to stories that aren't simply White House press releases is not journalism. And there is enough of that around.
2. (keep)Disagree with deletion. Article should instead be phrased to clearly attribute claims, including the title.--Eloquence

Note: The title has been changed to Aljazeera says United States have used napalm in Fallujah

1. (keep) I disagre with deletion. The fact that AlJazeera reports it doesn't make it biased. In the past AlJazeera has displayed bias (as does CNN, Fox et al.), but they have also been one of the few news organizations that are able to effectively report on occurences in Iraq. However, it certainly needed a rewrite and Carlosar's work on the article has made it much more balanced and worthy of acceptance. jkrusky 20:51, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. (keep) I think the article can be published now because it shows both points of view(against and for its publication) and therefore it is NPOV. Please, be carefull case you intend making changes on it. Carlosar 11:43, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. (keep) I think the article is fine. I agree with most comments in favor of keeping it. MikeCapone 19:03, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
4. (keep) Needs some work but I don't see it as having any real POV issue. Sarge Baldy 06:27, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
5. (keep) The fact that all the sources are arguably anti-occupation can be stated clearly in the article. Therefore, there are no POV issues. --194.66.226.95 15:39, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Delete

1. (delete) I agree with deletion. More diverse news sources are needed. All of the sources are Al-Jazeera or cite them. Independent confirmation of this by other news sources needed for credibility. --Dj28 15:05, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. (delete) Ditto. This sounds like Al-Jazeera propaganda. Andrew pmk 22:43, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

United States anti-drug efforts in Latin America criticized by WOLA report

REASON -- not NPOV, pure politic propaganda Carlosar 00:42, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC) ARGUMENTS -- Carlosar 00:42, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• "anti-drug efforts in Latin America criticized by report" - Who criticized? The author must be specified in the title(WOLA).
• what is WHOLA? What people are part of WHOLA? You said: "A criticizes B". But who is A? When a critic is made, you must especify who criticizes what.

1. (keep) Carlosar could you please start talking to people before you throw around deletion requests. I think you're acting out of proportion for the claims you make.119 01:12, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. (keep) I have some critics to this article but I vote for keepping it because nobody else has gave an opinion, and I dont want delete articles(I just demand articles get well written).--Carlosar 11:24, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Veteran sergeant accounts US torture coverup

REASON -- POV, bad written, unreliable source, propaganda, innacurate, frivolous. US government has punished the soldiers envolved in the Iraq soldiers bad treatment scandal. It is not precise when saying US government is covering up, since the government has not denied the events and punished the guilts. The article is sustainned only by its mere propaganda.

Keep

1. (keep) very important article, well documented. Reliable source: salon.com Also I edited it down to erase POV disputes. NW 01:42, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. (keep) Very important news story with credible journalist and former U.S. military counterintelligence officer authoring. Also the source, Sergeant Frank Ford is a an honorably discharged veteran and first hand eyewitness. The sources cited, Salon.com and Democracy Now! may have POV, but that does not make the stories they report inaccurate or false without further evidence.--Herda05 00:02, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. (keep) I have never heard about breaks of journalism ethics from Democracy Now!, so if they back the story, I would assume they have double-checked the facts. [6]

Delete

1. (delete) Not worth, POV, propaganda. The evidences are weak. Are you sure this news is true? Fake SEAL accuses soldiers of torture -- Carlosar 01:27, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ukraine and Western bias

REASON Consensus is that the article does not meet NPOV requirement. Suggest it get deleted so it doesn't languish in Peer Review jkrusky 02:33, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Keep

1. (keep) I strongly disagree. I believe the article presents some very relevant information. It ought to be worked on and adjusted as per peer suggestion (on the talk page) so that it can be published.
2. (keep) I disagree with this article being deleted. It is extremely informative regarding the topic. I do however agree that this article is not straight news, but I disagree that it is editorial. I think it is more analysis.--Herda05 03:28, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Delete

1. (delete) Agreed - okay editorial, poor news.-- Lankiveil 12:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC).

Januar 8, 2004

Tsunami Help De

REASON: Article not written in English. This is an English-language project. -- Davodd | Talk 14:06, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete - this is an English language project. If this is even newsworthy, it belongs on de.wikinews. 202.138.17.103 15:36, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC).

• A suggestion. Discuss solution first, and possibly wait until there is a better place to migrate. Details of my suggestion are the same as the pages in id below. Tomos 09:52, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps this should be transwikied? It would make more sense -- since a German wikinews exists - to but the content threre, would it not? -- Davodd | Talk

No clear consensus to delete - Amgine 01:55, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tsunami Help Id and Template:Tsunami Help Id and Template:Tsunami Relief Effort ID

REASON: Content of these articles is not written in English. This is an English-language project. -- Davodd | Talk 14:10, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete, this is an English language project. If this is even newsworthy, it belongs on id.wikinews. Lankiveil 15:39, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC).

Retain, it would take too long to establish id.wikinews, which does not currently exist, to make it a worthwhile or useful effort. Like it or not, this article has been publicised widely as a clearinghouse of information about the relief effort. I argue for special consideration since this i an extraordinary circumstance. --Drauh 19:33, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A suggestion. I share the same concern about pages in nl, zh, fr, too. But I think, like Drauh, simply delete all non-English pages is not our best interest, either, because a) there is a need for multi-lingual contents, b) some of information is perhaps needed very urgently to save lives, and c) they are kind of citizen journalists that we want to promote through this project. I know they are offered a place on socialtext. On the Tsunami Blog's mailinglist, there have been discussions about migration and candidates for the alternative place. So I think we can wait a bit, first tell people that such a language policy do exit here, (and my guess is they are not necessarily aware of it), and we can look for a reasonable solution and timetable. Tomos 09:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No clear consensus to delete - Amgine 01:58, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tsunami Help/Tsunami Blog In The Media

REASON: <Wikinews server space hijacked as a hosting site for press relations for a blog. -- Davodd | Talk 15:29, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) Page should be moved into a "Wikinews:" area. -- Davodd | Talk 17:57, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete - page is not appropriate for this project. Lankiveil 15:42, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC). Move. Move this, and perhaps other pages, into the Wikinews: namespace. Lankiveil 05:27, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC).

Clarificaton - The media publicity has given the wiki site / blog the authenticity and reach that is needed for it to be a good information source. Can you email seaeatvolunteers@yahoogroups.com do discuss this deletion request ? Thanks - Prashanth nikicrab10 17:52, 1 Jan 2005

Isn't a public forum (wiki spirit) instead of private email the correct way to address this issue? Davodd | Talk 21:00, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Solved - I deleted the page. CBasturea

Please follow the correct procedure for pages listed here, an allow community consensus to develop, and let an admin properly dispose of the page if that's what we decide to do. Lankiveil 05:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC).

A suggestion - With more explanation, I think it is okay that the page stays in a page in project namespace, as opposed to content namespace. If I understand correctly very important points we should understand about this case is that 1) Tsunami Help participants do not necessarily know all the implicit conventions of Wikinews projects that is so obvious to Wikimedians, 2) they are not acting in bad faith, and 3) their contents mostly come from SEA-EAT blog, its mailinglist, and email contribution to some of the key bloggers. So explanations of the Tsunami Help pages' contexts is not that appropriate if done in project name space, I think. How does that sound? Tomos 09:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(comment) I made a similar suggestion at Talk:Tsunami_Help#Is_everyone_happy.3F. So far, there is no strong objection and some support. For those of you who thought the page should be deleted, would this look like a reasonable solution or at least a potential worth persuing? Tomos 04:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since it isn't news (or even Wikinews) content - it has no place on the news article namespace - perhaps move it to a page like Wikinews:Tsunami Help/Media contacts - or such -- just so that it won't come up as a search result when someone is looking for a real news story -- or hits the random page button. -- Davodd | Talk 05:20, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I moved the page and wrote minimum intro. text. Thank you for everyone. Your further help on the page's text would be of course appreciated.Tomos 00:06, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Problems resolved by page move, edits - Amgine 02:03, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 11

Radical Group declares Tsunami punishment from God

• REASON: A conspiracy theory article. Unless the radical group has some kind of importance, this article is worthless. Besides the article is against free speech and religion freedom(although we cannot say that was the intention of the author). See the discussion page of the article. -- Carlosar 01:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please sign your name by typing the four characters ~~~~ after your comments, so we know who said what. Thanks.

• Retain, but edit for sensitivity. A new and more appropriate section is required for articles aimed at smaller interest groups such as this one, which specifically affects gay-rights activists in North America and calls attention to the fact that this specific, influential group is extremely argumentative. Again, retain, but edit in order to tone-down any bias while still retaining the original message.
• Keep. But edit. NOTE: votes may not be counted unless you sign and datestamp your vote. Do so by typing the four characters ~~~~ after your vote. It will automatically be changed to look somethng like this (except with your Wikinews username) --> -- Davodd | Talk 02:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and revise. Currently violates NPOV policy. However I disagree that the group has no importance — he is mentioned in recent news, and indeed there is even a Wikipedia article about him. -- IlyaHaykinson 02:45, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Retain and Revise, newsworthy, but not in its current form. As much as I dislike giving Phelps publicity, this is at least newsworthy.
• Retain and Revise, definitely worth keeping, but requires a return to NPOV. What kind of revisions should be made to improve the neutrality of the article while still maintaining the correct information? The quotations from Phelps's website are his own words, and part of the story. Perhaps the author's interpretations should be removed? Kidduffah 03:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Considering the general consensus thus far, I revised the article as much as I could while still retaining the original intended information. I also added a few more details that I researched. Maybe that will be enough. Comments on the new version?
• "...the Internet is a magnet for kooks and cranks". Mr. Phelps is trolling the entire world, and we are feeding him. I can't vote "neutral" given the subject matter of this story, but at the same time, Mr. Phelp's site defies credibility. If this is what someone wants to spend their time reporting on, so be it. Since Kidduffah made a good faith effort to improve the article, and given the connection to the Tsunami story, I vote Keep and Revise. However, I hope this story becomes an exception and not the type of thing we focus upon. Life is too short to worry about every kook, crank, crackpot, quack, fraudster, and hatemonger, notable or not. — DV 05:13, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This is propaganda, not news. Andrew pmk 23:00, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Personally I cannot see a way in which this is "propaganda", as there is no party it is supporting. Please read my comment regarding this topic in the discussion page for that article, and perhaps do some research on the topic yourselves before declaring it a hoax or a work of fiction. Kidduffah 05:01, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vote count: - Amgine 22:05, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• 4 Keep (with revisions)
• 1 Delete

February 7, 2005

Relativity turns 100

REASON -- Empty page, not NEWS at all. King Ho Cheung 16:36, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The article was saved. -- Davodd | Talk 07:50, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Oh yah, forgot to do that... - Amgine 16:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Unanimous - Amgine 01:39, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)