Wikinews:Deletion requests/Archives/Deleted Archive 17

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

Contents

August 31 [edit]

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

Bunt landowners Karnataka west coast [edit]

Copyvio essay. Not news. Why do people post this stuff here? irid:t 02:17, 31 August 2007 (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.


August 22 [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.

Portal:Cupertino, California [edit]

Looks completely pointless, one edit (prior to {{dr}}) by an anon with only that single contrib. Last edit was 11 December 2005. irid:t 16:43, 22 August 2007 (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. Jcart1534 00:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Peace activists propose 'Fast for Freedom' [edit]

As per comment on Talk page, I agree that this article needs a look at. I had tried to do something with it, editing-wise, but am not comfortable with it. Still seems like a press release or bit of propaganda without much news. Delete or Keep? Jcart1534 03:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

  • Speedy delete Looks like copyright violation, see this page which has nearly identical text. irid:t 07:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Slow delete or rewrite; copyvio removed from edit history. Still not a great article. Feels like a press release. irid:t 15:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment It is not a copy-vio. Mensnewsdaily picks up the RSS feed from Wikinews. It is our article on mensnewsdaily. Jcart1534 10:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Crap; I didn't notice the "source" link, nor the Creative Commons license. That burns. Sorry for the screwup. irid:t 15:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete; looks like a press release to me, no major attention other than on this site, not newsworthy. -Tej
  • Delete, speedily if we can find something in the policy pages that covers it. Ironiridis, don't worry, it's so unnoticable I made the same mistake. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:24, 22 August 2007 (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 18 [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. Jcart1534 00:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Batch of useless redirects [edit]

Doing some cleanup in the Wikinews: namespace. First stop is many old, useless redirects from story preparation. Listing here as a group; if any are contested, please say so.

Redirects from prepared stories don't make sense to keep for long periods of time; nobody should be linking to a prepared story from outside of Wikinews. All of these redirects either point at the completed article, or point at other prepared stories (name changes, spelling, etc).

Deleting these, since they don't make much sense, really helps in keeping track of active prepared articles. Some of them don't get tagged with {{prepared}}, and some of them don't end up in the right place (see top entry). Reducing cruft will help keep the process of writing these prepared stories cleaner and easier to maintain.

  1. Wikinews:StoryPreperation/Bird flu strain confirmed in Suffolk, UK
  2. Wikinews:Story Preparation/French director Jean Delannoy dies
  3. Wikinews:Story Preparation/French structuralist Claude Lévi-Strauss dies
  4. Wikinews:Story Preperation/Candaian actress Barbara Kent dies
  5. Wikinews:Story Preperation/Last Zeigfreid girl Doris Eaton Travis dies
  6. Wikinews:Story preparation/* wins Super Bowl XLI
  7. Wikinews:Story preparation/2006 England local elections results
  8. Wikinews:Story preparation/2007 Cricket World Cup:Australia vs Scotland
  9. Wikinews:Story preparation/2007 Cricket World Cup:England vs New Zealand
  10. Wikinews:Story preparation/2007 Cricket World Cup:India vs Bangladesh
  11. Wikinews:Story preparation/2007 Cricket World Cup:Kenya vs Canada
  12. Wikinews:Story preparation/2007 Cricket World Cup:South Africa vs Netherlands
  13. Wikinews:Story preparation/2007 Cricket World Cup:Sri Lanka vs Bermuda
  14. Wikinews:Story preparation/2007 Cricket World Cup:West Indies vs Pakistan
  15. Wikinews:Story preparation/2007 Cricket World Cup:Zimbabwe vs Ireland
  16. Wikinews:Story preparation/Ariel Sharon, Israeli PM, dead at 77
  17. Wikinews:Story preparation/Astronomers endorse proposal for 8 planets and 4 plutons in our solar system
  18. Wikinews:Story preparation/Barry Bonds Hits Home Run 756
  19. Wikinews:Story preparation/Barry Bonds Hits Home run 756
  20. Wikinews:Story preparation/Barry Bonds Hits Homerun 756
  21. Wikinews:Story preparation/Battle for Wesnoth
  22. Wikinews:Story preparation/Belgian voters decide faith of socialist-liberal coalition today
  23. Wikinews:Story preparation/Bloggers investigate social networking websites
  24. Wikinews:Story preparation/British Columbia, Canada, Leadership debate
  25. Wikinews:Story preparation/Burlington, Markham, and York South-Weston election results
  26. Wikinews:Story preparation/Canadian Idol comes to Ottawa
  27. Wikinews:Story preparation/Candaian actress Barbara Kent dies
  28. Wikinews:Story preparation/Clouded future for VoIP in Vonage - Verizon patent contest
  29. Wikinews:Story preparation/Conclave elects new Pope
  30. Wikinews:Story preparation/Death of Nancy Benoit announced on Wikipedia 14 hours before it occured
  31. Wikinews:Story preparation/Death of Nancy Benoit rumour posted on Wikipedia 14 hours prior to event
  32. Wikinews:Story preparation/English Wikipedia reaches one million articles
  33. Wikinews:Story preparation/FOX News 'fair and balanced?' Not on Wikipedia
  34. Wikinews:Story preparation/Fiji Coup
  35. Wikinews:Story preparation/Former U.S. President Gerald Ford dies
  36. Wikinews:Story preparation/Former U.S. President Gerald Ford dies at 92
  37. Wikinews:Story preparation/Fox News discovered to have made unproductive Wikipedia edits
  38. Wikinews:Story preparation/Global youth conference on genocide begins in Kigali
  39. Wikinews:Story preparation/Her Majesty today unveiled the New Zealand Memorial in London

irid:t 03:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Done --Jcart1534 22:26, 18 August 2007 (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 14 [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.

Template:Audio Interview [edit]

I've made this redundant by adding an option to Template:Original reporting to link to an audio interview file so as to simplify the layout on article pages. See Wikinews interviews: Tony Benn on U.K. politics for an example where this option is used. Adambro 15:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

  • Delete - ok, that sounds reasonable, plus there are no articles currently using {{Template:Audio Interview}}. --SVTCobra 00:42, 28 August 2007 (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 6 [edit]

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

Canadian Doctors Exposed [edit]

Copyright violation and propaganda piece. irid:t 16:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy deleted for reasons in nomination. —Zachary talk 16:59, 6 August 2007 (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 [edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete Thunderhead - (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC). Do not add any more votes or comments on this request.

Image:Tony Blair news conference, G8 Russia, 17 July 2006.jpg [edit]

I uploaded this image locally after concerns were raised about its deletion from Commons to allow the image to be discussed. The image is not freely licensed and looking at the context it is used in the article Blair agrees Iraq is a disaster, it is only used for the purposes of identifying Tony Blair. In this context, our use of this copyrighted image does not qualify as fair use since a freely licensed alternative could be created to show the same information and there is probably a suitable image available on Commons. Adambro 16:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

  • Comment... I hate this issue, it seriously sucks. I cannot take the rules on living person photos seriously - I mean, c'mon, how are we going to get someone the sort of access required to get a photo like this? There are cases where you can get a superior photo if you are lucky (see w:Tony Benn - I didn't get an interview, but Commons got a great picture of the man). This isn't one of those situations, and news rarely is - we need a photo right now, we're not an encyclopedia, we can't wait for next month's walkabout to get a snap from an enthusiastic Wikimedian, so things like this end up used.
I think I would sum up the image issue, and its conflict with Wikinews as "Ideology over practicality". Being seen as a champion of this has not helped Eloquence win support among certain quarters of our community and those who are - like him - more strict in their ideology have not appeared to make an effort to help draft a practical and workable EDP for this project.
This case should likely be a delete as the image is from the G8 and the article is not - hence I have not voted. However, as we lose another image I'd like to see this sorted so we have a clear plain English policy with wide consensus. I don't particularly care if that means we need Wikinews:Image usage for dummies, we need more than we currently have - and my opinion is it needs to be more in favour of keeping things and not excessively applying the living persons rules and so where we have time constraints that an encyclopaedia does not. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I certainly understand and appreciate the point that you are making Brian. The fast moving nature of news demands a clear policy on images and in that respect I certainly agree. Where I would disagree though, is that the image issue that this deletion request raises conflicts with the aims of Wikinews. I would highlight that one of the key principles of the project is to create a freely licensed news source which anyone can use. This presents us with great challenges as you note in finding freely licensed images. I disagree that "we need a photo right now". In these circumstances I am afraid we must appreciate the limitations of the nature of the project and accept that this, an other images, whilst nice to have are certainly not necessary and we shouldn't accept unfree images in all but very limited instances. Again, we are trying to create free news. This is quite a unique aim and as such poses unique difficulties. As the project, and Commons, grows, we are more likely to be able to obtain photographs in situations where you suggest is difficult. Adambro 07:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - While I understand brianmc's concerns, in this particular case, the only purpose is to illustrate the likeness of Tony Blair, which, at the time, could have been done with a number of freely available alternatives. One such alternative, that predates the article, should be used, in my opinion, to replace this image in said article. --SVTCobra 23:47, 6 August 2007 (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 31 [edit]

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

Image:Phil Mickelson.jpg [edit]

This image, used in the article Phil Mickelson wins Masters to identify Phil Mickelson, is a crop of an image of the cover of his book, One Magical Sunday: (But Winning Isn't Everything). The use of this image in this way does not qualify as fair use since a freely available photo could be found or created to show the same information, that is what Phil Mickelson looks like. Adambro 18:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

  • Delete It does seem image came from the book, cropped from a one-time cover on Wikipedia. Whether that is true or not both clearly both originate from the same photo. Its use on the book shows that it is the work of a professional photographer. I think it is clear that even at the time of the article, it was not fair-use. --SVTCobra 01:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete --Jcart1534 00:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, but replace first. Clearly copyvio, but a significant article from 2006 uses this image. irid:t 04:31, 1 September 2007 (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 24 [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. Daniel 07:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews:Story preparation/The forgotten Wikimedian: Who really broke the Benoit edit story [edit]

Part of a significant story at the time but I doubt it will ever be developed further. Adambro 14:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

  • Delete - I think this Wikimedian is already forgotten - or at least this article is. --SVTCobra 02:06, 31 July 2007 (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 18 [edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is deleted by TUFKAAP. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Daniel 09:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows leak! [edit]

This is just a big spoiler waiting to happen. One person's already tried to post alleged endings. Thunderhead - (talk) 02:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Thunderhead - (talk) 02:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - whether or not this has met the abandoned standard, it can no longer be published since we already have stories about the book being on the market. --SVTCobra 01:19, 21 July 2007 (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 13 [edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete and replace. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Daniel 06:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sickoposter.jpg [edit]

This is a duplicate image of this poster, Image:200px-Sickoposter.jpg already existed when it was uploaded. Since under fair use we should use low resolution images and since the width of the earlier image is the maximum size used in any article, I propose deleting Image:Sickoposter.jpg and replacing it with Image:200px-Sickoposter.jpg. Adambro 14:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - the 200px version is plenty big to illustrate story. --SVTCobra 14:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: And replace. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 09:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, and create lower resolution alternative. The lower resolution alternative currently on offer is from a competing news agency and thus should not be used. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:42, 17 July 2007 (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. Daniel 09:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Chitra Ramanathan Painting on Anodized Aluminium encased in Plexiglas, Private Collection Europe.jpg [edit]

This image is unused, and whilst it is freely licensed, it is quite clearly a derivative work and the uploader hasn't provided enough information about it to enable us to determine whether it can be moved to Commons so I suggest we just delete it. It is probably also worth nothing that as far as I can tell it is the users only contribution. Adambro 14:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I guess {{unused}} hasn't been adopted. --SVTCobra 14:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - I will be introducing an unused template soon as the reaction to the proposal has all been positive but this process would only apply to unfree images as there is no problem with freely licenced images hanging around if they are unused. They should be moved to Commons though if they are within the project scope. The reason I haven't moved this image to Commons is because of the concerns noted in this deletion request. Adambro 14:26, 16 July 2007 (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 9 [edit]

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

Images in Category:Localupload [edit]

This deletion request is of the 15 weather map images in this category. All of which are unused and were only uploaded here so they could be protected as they were used on the main page. Adambro 15:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

  • Delete per nom; unused media. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I wanted to leave this to someone involved with the weather project, but they didn't weigh in on this. --SVTCobra 02:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm not involved in the weather project, but there is really no reason to keep these images. —Zachary talk 04:09, 31 July 2007 (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 8 [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.

Template:WeatherMapCredit and others [edit]

I understand the above very similar templates to be unused, and since weather maps are being uploaded to Commons I don't think they will be used in the future either. Category:Maps is the associated category to which the templates would categorise images to which is empty and so I also propose is deleted. Adambro 19:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete All Thunderhead 19:46, 8 July 2007 (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 Abandoned and speed deleted. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request.

A Wiki with a Business Model [edit]

Massive problems with this page, see its' talk page. It's also no longer news, and was never published due to the problems. I would have merely tagged it as abandoned, but that was tried one before (on July 5), and an IP came along and fixed a typo, and removed the abandoned template. Just delete it and be done with it. Daniel 03:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Thunderhead 19:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - No edits for a good while which suggests the problems aren't going to be addressed and it is getting old now. Adambro 13:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - This has been totally abandoned since July 8, and effectively abandoned since June 30. --SVTCobra 14:26, 16 July 2007 (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 5 [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.

Category:Unused Images - proposed for deletion [edit]

The contents of this category are all unfree images whose use on Wikinews would come under the fair use defence however since these are all unused we can't justify keeping them so they should be deleted. It has been discussed on IRC and it seems sensible to delete this backlog in advance of forming a procedure for images with this issue in the future as is being discussed on the talk page.

There are 114 109 images in total. The original list that this category is based on can be seen at User:Adambro/Unused. It will of course be important that any deleting admins check that these images are unused at that point in time. Adambro 10:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete and comment... I haven't checked these, and I believe this DR should be kept open at least 7 days to allow people a chance to check the images. Just to clarify what has been discussed by the Cabal folks in IRC - we propose a tag to denote an image as unused. Tag cannot be added until at least 7 days after image is uploaded, and must be present on image for 7 days before deletion (as a default action). The idea to - hopefully - follow is that if an image is listed and someone objects (eg they're certain we will need it) they remove the tag, list it as a normal DR, and vote oppose with their reason for keeping. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Does that mean that there is no more Speedy Delete of news images from competing news organizations and other blatant copyright violations? --SVTCobra 14:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
No, it means that this new tag {{unused image}}? will be applied where an image qualifies under fair use guidelines but isn't actually used. (c) vios will still qualify for speedy. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
An example would be uploading something fair-use from a govt. website but the associated article doesn't survive (for whatever reasons). Unless it is an ongoing event the image is useless to us, so why keep it? --Brian McNeil / talk 14:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, just checking. It just sounded like a 7 day waiting period for all images. --SVTCobra 21:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
done and removed from list--MarkTalk 21:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, that's fine. I suppose by taking the time to look through the list it is possible to find images that shouldn't be deleted. Adambro 09:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Image:Wikibreak-banner.png looks kinda fun and could be used on user pages. Since we are Wikinews, do we have to subject ourselves to fair-use when using our own logo? Can it be transferred to commons? Or just kept for some other reason? --SVTCobra 22:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • WTF I've been informed by Mars, Inc. that you Adambro are up for speedy deletion for attempting to delete images that are not unused... HaHa... in particular this one Image:M&M character Crispy.gif which links to (oh never mind while my acces is being blocked) -Edbrown05 11:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, of course you have Edbrown05. Anyway, apologies, I've removed it from the category and looked through the other 109 images by hand and cannot find any others that are used. Adambro

Yes, of course you have users like Adambro who are trying to make deletions out of process. The positive process would be to work on community development of something that works forward, not backward. A news years resolution by the WMF is not good as a backwards working thing. You can't undo the past. Help us establish a working policy forward. -Edbrown05 11:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

And I don't mean nit-picky -Edbrown05 11:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't understand what point it is you are trying to make nor the relevance of your comments to the discussion as to whether these images should be deleted. The only reason I perhaps may be "trying to make deletions out of process" is because there is no process for dealing with unfree unused images. I'm trying to address this by the proposal I've made on the talk page, I am most defiantly attempting to "establish a working policy".Adambro 11:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
The point I'm trying to make is you don't get to delete... anything. You are not qualified and are a potential liar, So the ... you cant come here and try to misiform us. -Edbrown05 12:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Like any other Wikinews editor who isn't an admin, no, I don't get to delete anything. If I feel something should be deleted I follow WN policies and bring it to the attention of other editors to consider. I am perfectly qualified to do this. I'm very disappointed that you chose to make unfounded allegations that I am a "potential liar", do you have an evidence to support this? If not then I would consider it a personal attack, which does nothing to further the aims of this project. Adambro 12:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Ed, I know you're a bit distrustful of people from Commons and discussions in IRC, but I believe Adambro is making a good-faith effort here. He has discussed this extensively in IRC with several people - including DragonFire1024 - who you'd probably recognise as a fellow inclusionist. I appreciate his focus on images may make you suspicious, but that's what he knows - it is one of the ways he can be useful to the project. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - the remaining images have had time to be claimed, but no one did. --SVTCobra 00:38, 10 July 2007 (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 3 [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.

Template:Wikinews Indiana [edit]

Not useful, not used and all the links are broken. --SVTCobra 15:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Votes

  • Delete as per my own nomination. --SVTCobra 15:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - This doesn't look very useful. Adambro 16:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't see us finding any way to use this. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, unsure how this could be used effectively. Daniel 11:54, 6 July 2007 (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. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request.

Template:Othello [edit]

Not useful and not used. --SVTCobra 16:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Votes

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


July 2 [edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is Article deleted by Thunderhead for reason "article is promotional material". Do not add any more votes or comments on this request.

Joni_Kabana [edit]

Speedy delete as ad spam. Emperor NortonXXIII 02:03, 3 July 2007 (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.

Category:Islamic terrorism [edit]

Since most Muslims will condemn acts of terrorism, it probably isn't right to categorise articles in this way and in so doing associate the religion with terrorism as many would say this goes against the religion. Adambro 22:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - I think the Cat Terrorism was removed in the past and I think the same happened to Cat War. This one doesn't stand a chance. --SVTCobra 01:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I am hardly aware of anyone who would support terrorism. I, Sheikh Osama bin Laden, Pakistani Religious Affairs Minister Ijaz-ul Haq, and everybody is against terrorism. Ijaz-ul Haq believes that martydom operations are fine if someone insults Islam yet he is adamant in his desire to "to curbing terrorism and extremism in society."[1]
This isn't about who is for or against terrorism. It is about tracking news events.--Blivit 15:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
If you consider them "martyrdom operations" then why are you labelling them "islamic terrorism"? --SVTCobra 15:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Certain attacks that result in suicide are martyrdom operations in Islam. I am using "Islamic terrorism" here, but I would support the deletion of this category if we create a jihad category.--Blivit 15:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV, terrorism to some is what the government says it is, which is certainly not always the case.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Troublesome category as this sort of thing is often disputed; leading to unceartainty about whether the article should be here or not. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 11:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Ones' terrorist is anothers' freedom fighter, and although it isn't always this extreme, there's no doubt this carries with it POV problems we must avoid. Delete. Daniel 11:56, 6 July 2007 (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.

Image:Jackson mosque bahrain.jpg [edit]

This image is unused, doesn't have any details of its source, and is probably a copy vio. Adambro 14:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Can't see any possible use, discussed by the Cabal in IRC, very low likelihood of subsequent use. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete indeed - there is no source provided, so it is impossible to verify the licence and in addition, I doubt it will find use in future. Martinp23 14:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • delete per nom and Adambro. JoshuaZ 14:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - no source listed. And isn't that about the size of photos on msm news articles? doubt it was released to PD. --SVTCobra 01:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Quick delete, not used, no source, possible/probable copyvio. Uncontroversial as its' not used, required as it's not sourced. Daniel 11:58, 6 July 2007 (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. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request.

More Glasgow car crash images [edit]

Similar to those deleted below. All unused and all from a competing news organisation. Adambro 13:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete speedily as against Fair Use. Martinp23 14:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - not fair use.--SVTCobra 01:00, 3 July 2007 (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 1 [edit]

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

Glasgow car crash images [edit]

Both are from the BBC so we can't use them. Could probably be speedied. Images were also missing fair use rationale. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete per WN:FU, "Photos from competing news organizations that are uploaded without permission can be deleted on sight." Adambro 14:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you agree. Speedied.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:28, 1 July 2007 (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.

Fox News copying Wikinews investigation [edit]

So Not news, should be speeded imo, however, that might be controversial Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 05:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - I completely agree with Brian that this is not appropriate. Our purpose is to report news, not make possibly incorrect accusations about other news organisations. Adambro 10:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    • comment The claim that we are possibly incorrect simply doesn't hold water. The length and detail of the copied passages and the timing and other comments in the Fox article would suggest such an improbable coincident that it almost boggles the mind. If this were in an acadameic setting it would be much more evidence than necessary to conclude that a student had plagiarized. JoshuaZ 15:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment - I have not claimed that the accusation is incorrect, merely suggested it may be the case because I'm not a lawyer so can't say for sure whether the accusations are appropriate. Whilst the text does come from Wikinews, it is obvious from the FOX article that they are not the source and they attribute it to Wikipedia, albeit incorrectly. I'm not convinced that this simple error is enough to warrant this article or the accusations. Adambro 15:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
        • They attribute the matter to Wikipedia but they copied content from here without sourcing. That's plagiarism. JoshuaZ 17:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not that we should be trampled upon, but it seems that most media outlets recognise that Wikinews first reported the story. This kind of 'payback' is inappropriate.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not the right place for this discussion, and our most recent story on the matter was written in a manner that most media outlets recognized us as originating the primary/root issue. Bubbaprog 13:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete As annoying as it was, I'm with Brian on this one in that it cannot possibly be written into a news article. Pilotguy roger that 13:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. It needed written up and kept in reserve if the mainstream didn't recognise us. They did, and we can afford to be magnanimous. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete can never be a respectable article. Martinp23 14:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • keep Ok, going against the grain here, but the way I see it is as follows: if this has occured with a Fox copying from a third party or even from a related party like Wikipedia we would have no issue keeping this article. Why? Because it is in fact newsworthy and is a valid news article. The fact that the source in question was WikiNews just means that we need to be more careful about the article. This isn't "payback", this is news. JoshuaZ 15:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Thunderhead 15:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: I posted this story on the Wikinews Reports blog (click for article). DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 14:18, 5 July 2007 (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 29 [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.

Category:Youngest [edit]

This should not be a category. Unregistered user, 82.224.88.52, seems to want to use it for some personal purpose. I quote from collaboration page Talk:Young bridge player wins at Antalya, Turkey:

Most of the time I have put those category links on discussion pages because the main pages are not available because protected by sysops. 82.224.88.52 10:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

--SVTCobra 14:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

some personal purpose lol lol lol... I've not written inside my personal pages for months and I have no idea why a sysop has categorized my own page inside Category:Youngest.
OK, I fixed this. Your talk page is no longer in the Cat. --SVTCobra 01:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
BTW it seemed obvious to me to include this recent article in this useful category. 82.224.88.52 10:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Three days later, my creation about the youngest ever bridge player winning an Open international title has not only being removed from this Category:Youngest but the new text dealing with it makes nonsense. 82.224.88.52 00:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I still contend that the Category is useless and should be deleted. If you wanted to make edits to protected pages you should have gone here to make your request. --SVTCobra 01:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Votes

... Consensus... without any discussion ;-))) Will at least one out of my so many censors tell me why delete Category:Youngest and why keep the less significant Category:Sports records and statistics ? ? ? 82.224.88.52 10:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, instead, you could explain why your category is useful. --SVTCobra 23:40, 4 July 2007 (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 28 [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.

Image:HKConfjpg.jpg [edit]

Unused unfree image which is likely never to be used on Wikinews. Adambro 10:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, was discussed on IRC - image is of a candidate city for Wikimania (Hong Kong) as it didn't get selected, and the image is unused anywhere on wikinews, it is unlikely ever to be used. As a local upload this will not impact any other wiki. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Though the Photoshopping does look nice... terinjokes | Talk 19:41, 30 June 2007 (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 26 [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.

Wikinews:Story preparation/Wikipedia class action lawsuit linked to possible earthquake charity fraud [edit]

This has been hanging around for too long - they all went away. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - no need for a story prep that won't/can't happen. --SVTCobra 01:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete There is no need to keep this. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, no longer news. No point in it hanging around. Daniel 03:08, 8 July 2007 (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 all but one set". Do not add any more votes or comments on this request.

Contents of Category:Weather graphics [edit]

I understand these images are the result of a trial service to provide weather image here. I'm pretty sure that all of these are unused so don't believe they need to be kept. There also seems to be a new approach to this project consisting of replacing the image instead of using a new name. Adambro 18:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete all but one complete set. That's so I can point someone there for a list of file names the application generates. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Sounds fair enough. Looking through the category, it seems most of them were either uploaded by you or DragonFire1024 so I'll leave it up to you two to decide which are appropriate to be kept. I think its fair to say that keeping all of these is unnecessary though. Adambro 14:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Adam and Brian. --TUFKAAP 21:44, 12 July 2007 (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 24 [edit]

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

Tavasys [edit]

I want to quickly process this and delete tomorrow, it is a press release, and it is old. 5 deletes and no opposes and I'll zap it. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This was promotional material, I'd like to start establishing that it goes a bit faster and with lower criteria. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Umm, 2 days seems fast enough to me. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:00, 26 June 2007 (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 10 [edit]

Protesters_moving_towards_Heiligendamm [edit]

I didn´t collect any further infos (I have only about 2 sentences on talk), and do not intend to finish the article as it is no longer news. Sean Heron 09:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC) Sean Heron 09:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, user request. Daniel 09:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Done--MarkTalk 09:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

June 9 [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.

Image:Belinda stronach.jpg [edit]

An obvious case of replacable fair use. This does not qualify as a legitimate fair use image, and per WMF resolution, this should be deleted. We even have a free replacement on Commons, however we're using the non-free version because the free version "...sucks...". Daniel 06:49, 9 June 2007 (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 4 [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.

Portal:Eastern Shore, Maryland [edit]

Local news, has no articles. —FellowWikiNewsie 23:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  • delete - We barely have enough to populate Portal:Maryland. And, really, does Maryland have other shores than the eastern one? --SVTCobra 23:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete too specific subdivision of an already small category. —Zachary talk 00:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 06:52, 9 June 2007 (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 [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.

Category:Interwiki utility templates [edit]

They all need to die!!! Hell yes. We shall delete them all with no regret and happiness!!! —FellowWikiNewsie 00:32, 1 June 2007 (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.

Category:Women's football (soccer) [edit]

Category:Women's sports, along with Category:Football (soccer) should be sufficient for women's football articles. —Zachary talk 01:08, 1 June 2007 (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.

Category:Women's basketball [edit]

Category:Women's sports, along with Category:Basketball, like above. —Zachary talk 01:08, 1 June 2007 (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.

Category:NCAA Women's basketball [edit]

Category:Women's sports, along with Category:Basketball and Category:NCAA for this one. —Zachary talk 01:08, 1 June 2007 (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.

Category:NCAA women's basketball [edit]

See above. —Zachary talk 01:08, 1 June 2007 (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.

Category:Tennessee Lady Vols basketball [edit]

Too specific. Only one article about the team (not in cat) Candace Parker double dunks, makes basketball history. —Zachary talk 01:08, 1 June 2007 (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 31 [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.

Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Drtsp [edit]

Per below. Please delete/look at all the pages listed (or list them here and comment on them) in the above link. I couldn't list all the pages as there are too many!! —FellowWikiNewsie 20:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral on {{fixhtml}} (I could see a case in the future where that may be useful, but its not incredibly useful, so I really don't care either way), everything else die in a hole. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:35, 31 May 2007 (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.

Portal:Renewable energy [edit]

Encyclopedic, only effort to put an article in it was incompatibly copywritten material that was old. Unlikely to be consistently applied, virtually impossible to retroactively apply. Basically copying a structure from Wikipedia that is inappropriate here. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe the corresponding Category:Renewable energy should also go. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:38, 31 May 2007 (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 30 [edit]

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

Norfolk clothes theft [edit]

Article has no sources and contains unsubstantiated allegations - linking unkown crime suspect to a public figure, and prejudicial statement implying people from Liverpool are thieves, both of which may be considered defamatory.CWiltshire 11:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

have deleted as suspected hoax. –Doldrums(talk) 12:09, 30 May 2007 (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 26 [edit]

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

Image:Bush Bird Poop.jpg [edit]

This is using another media’s image (it even has the ABC logo on it) and our fair use policy clearly states we cannot use images taken by the other media. According to policy, this should be speeded; however I’ll submit it here. It is a clear Delete Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 08:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep It is a screen shot ({{screenshot}}) from listed video and qualifies as fair use under United States Copyright Laws.
I know I'm not supposed to edit this after the fact, but I'd like to point out the above is absulutly incorrect and wrong. The image Bawolff ☺☻ 23:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete once someone with more video-foo has replaced with the same image from the Whitehouse streaming video. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The image is essential to the story. Credit them, ABC, for broadcasting it. -Edbrown05 08:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I had a go at extracting the appropriate bit from the stream available from the Whitehouse but I just got blanks instead of the image. The problem here is there is a free alternative, the Whitehouse version of the video is PD. The link to that is on this page. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Its not blank...the zoom needs resizing...and thats fine...and I can get the image...but then the zoom is about 300%...cannot crop it because it will not crop where I tell it to. DragonFire1024 08:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
If you can extract an image from this, please do. I spent about half an hour this morning looking for software to capture the stream so I could edit out an image. The ABC one is a competing news agency; since we didn't have a camera there it's the PD White House stream we have to use. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I too have experienced difficulty coping with screen shot behavior on videos. Good luck. -Edbrown05 09:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I have requested help from Commons on getting a free image... Wait and see. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and get the free alternative.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Wait until we get the free alternative. I have tried numerous times to capture the image, it's not an easy task! --Skenmy(t•c•w•i) 12:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I succeeded for the screenshot of the NZNats interview, but indeed you can't simply screenshot the video, it needs to be hacked :-).--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Got the shot I needed, thanks to BrianNewZealand :) DELETED. DragonFire1024 07:28, 27 May 2007 (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 24 [edit]

Women_ruining_BBC_claims_Patrick_Moore [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. Old news - event happened on May 8.--MarkTalk 09:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The comment is correct, however this is an ongoing issue. LookerOn 09:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)LookerOn

  • Comment I will defer voting delete for the moment, but you need a more recently dated source to justify having the story here. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, user has not found a more recent source - just an older one that shows the event to be May 8 or earlier. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The more you revert ... 
(cur) (last)  07:49, 31 May 2007 Brianmc (Talk | contribs) (1,192 bytes) (no recent source, no justification for date bump, old news, listed on deletion requests, revert) 
(cur) (last)  07:35, 31 May 2007 82.224.88.52 (Talk) (1,213 bytes) (Changing the initial date to get this brief be printed at last) 
(cur) (last)  06:32, 31 May 2007 Daniel.Bryant (Talk | contribs) (1,191 bytes) (No longer abandoned, was edited) 
(cur) (last)  14:55, 30 May 2007 82.224.88.52 (Talk) (1,204 bytes) (→Sources - British TV standards are deteriorating because the BBC is "run by women", astronomer Sir Patrick Moore has said) 
(cur) (last)  12:41, 30 May 2007 Brianmc (Talk | contribs) (1,122 bytes) (abandoned)

... The more it will become an older one that shows the event to be May 8. 82.224.88.52 09:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have not reverted out the old May 8 source you added, and I waited several days to see if you were correct and if the event would develop - for example, by Patrick Moore being taken off the Beeb. Nothing happened, the story is deceased. It has slipped of it's mortal coil, it is an ex-story. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean saying Patrick Moore being taken off the Beeb: I'm not British but an European continental native. Here, the daily newspapers quite often publish news when several weeks old.

BTW the last time I got a publish banner unreverted here was about a story that was starting twenty years ago with just a minor development added. 82.224.88.52 11:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete not current enough news according to our content guidelines. —Zachary talk 11:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, this isn't news, and is outside the scope of Wikinews. Unless a source from the last two-three days is found, detailing developments in the story from the earlier links, no article on this event can exist. Daniel 11:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete DragonFire1024 11:42, 31 May 2007 (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 21 [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.

Category:Templates using ParserFunctions [edit]

It is not fesable (or useful) to label every template using parser functions with this. Temnplates which do special effects go into category:Strange and unusual templates. This cat is part of TSP. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:44, 22 May 2007 (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.

Portal:Budapest [edit]

Has no articles. —FellowWikiNewsie 21:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Budapest [edit]

Has no articles and it probably should be merged to Category:Budapest, Hungary. —FellowWikiNewsie 21:14, 21 May 2007 (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 20 [edit]

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

TSP Pages [edit]

The list below shows a whole host of pages from the TSP project that i am requesting deletion for. Due to the shear size of the task i am listing them as a DPL.--MarkTalk 14:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The what project?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
See meta:MP:TSP, WN:ALERT#User:Mac, meta:Talk:MP:TSP#Wikinews (Its the template sharing project, or as I like to call it, the lets copy all the most useless templates in the world to every single wikimedia project as they're to stupid to figure out how to create it on there own). Bawolff ☺☻ 19:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The Template Sharing Project!! God havent you heard of it before!! It's like another commons delinker!!!--MarkTalk 19:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete ALL. The only one I can see a use for is soft redirect. The rest are technobabble that is incomprehensible and arcane. It has no place on this wiki as we're not going to spend four hours fiddling with templates before publishing an article. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Note a couple of these don't even work (like {{unicode}} as its more or less a css thing) The only one I like is {{tlx}}. (I have yet to see a use for a soft redirect, but we'll probably eventually have one) Bawolff ☺☻ 20:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Soft redirect is used on Wikinews:Stewards, and could probably have a useful purpose on a few other pages too, though it makes more sense just to use direct wikilinks instead of linking to a local soft redirect. As for {{tlx}}, I have merged it into {{template}}, so keeping it is no longer necessary. -- Zachary 21:04, 21 May 2007
  • Keep -- they're doing no harm, and some good. With respect to [user:Mac], I wasn't aware he was even trying to help, though I did try to interest him a few months back on the commons when he messed up some categories, just this side of vandalism. Be advised he's not even reached high school as far as I can determine, which makes him younger than my two teens. // FrankB

I've taken a few hours to break 'them' down for you all by function and use here. The purpose of the templates you three seem determined to throw out is so that you all won't have to fiddle with documentation, or with templates to make them work site to site. That's TSP's mission-- we can certainly do other things with our free time -- and except for things like unicode, which is your antiquated .css page's problem, these all work, are all common on other sites (a part of the rationale of the project is to provide common tools in common categories, so others can be productive here or you there. I'd certainly suggest you keep Template:Lts regardless of what you do with tools. Template:I2Further, we've been very selective in whether to import a template here, this has a mere token of this, this, or that. In fact, I apologize for neglecting you so far as leaving the odd strategic redlink here and there. But you aren't a project which needs a lot of templates. (Upon a link check, I'm afraid they're all off on 'the totals' right now-- Interwikitmp-grp is being adjusted for proper categorisation, and the current version is skipping that function for the moment. The ratio's that are shown are still relatively indicative. You've hardly been picked upon or had templates forced down your throat.) Template:I2But do mind the rationale ... anything down the time pike in a template that's likely to be 'interesting and useful in a general template' will be likely linking to one of or using one of the small core one's you're about to discard, because they are what are becoming standard in documentation practices. More to the point, it's convienient as hell to just drop a link on a page in a discussion about what's going on elsewhere. Many of these even let you do that across languages. It's your time. You can disrespect the man-months we've put into this system, and frankly, we won't miss maintaining you as we can use the time elsewhere. But the concept that we just drop 'useless templates' willy-nilly goes beyond disrespectful. Good day. // FrankB 07:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  • If these templates were to be useful they'd have meaningful names. Call me an old-fashioned ex-COBOL programmer if you like, but I expect things like templates to have a name that indicates its usage; not have to have some documentation on tlxyzzy which I'd have to read for every template when I couldn't remember which of these obscure names I wanted. Oh, and long-winded responses make people's eyes glaze over.
Our "strategy" (if you can call it that) is to welcome people who set up an account or make an edit. That gives a link to a lot of our documentation straight off. In fact, you need read nothing else to effectively contribute to the project. People are then exposed to more of the details of our site by visiting the Water Cooler and the Newsroom. For templates, our three most-used are {{date}}, {{publish}}, and {{archive}}. Only one of those would be any use over on wikipedia.
The problem is, this has been approached in totally the wrong way. Like many things we feel it has been "imposed" as we were not consulted. This is a sure-fire way for ideas to end up on this page. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Despite reading Fabartus's rationale for keeping all of the template sharing stuff, I have to vote delete all to this. To me, it all seems like a mess of templates that depend on templates that require a bunch of other templates, which have no logical use by themselves.
For example, do we need to have a template that makes a link to meta? What's wrong with just doing [[m:Meta]]? There are also templates that make template links for other projects. But what's the need to format them with {{ and }} if they don't work as {{w:SomeWPTemplate}}? A link like [[w:Template:SomeWPTemplate]] can be used for that. The documentation pages don't work here; templates can't have subpages.
Also a note to whoever deletes the pages: check the Special:Whatlinkshere for pages that use the template, to check if they are used anywhere other than the template sharing stuff. —Zachary talk 01:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note on the below list some pages are erroneously listed because they include a template for deletion. If it is obvious that the page is not to be deleted then please don't worry it will not get deleted - just the section including one of the templates. There are no articles for this topic.

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.

Sudanese goat man now a widower [edit]

Nice story, but overdue.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete DragonFire1024 23:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - it now qualifies as abandoned as well --SVTCobra 00:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Catmore [edit]

Links to the Catmore, England article on Wikipedia. —FellowWikiNewsie 01:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete I can see how this would be useful for Wikipedia, if there's a category that shares a name with an article, but I don't see the usefulness of this here. —Zachary talk 01:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • delete in a hole (Although we really should figure out some standard for the difference between portals and cats and how they link)Bawolff ☺☻ 02:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Drought [edit]

Dupe of already deleted Category:Droughts. —FellowWikiNewsie 01:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep as a subcategory of natural disaster. --Mac 09:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete only one story - cat has been previously deleted. --MarkTalk 10:08, 20 May 2007 (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 19 [edit]

Portal:Kaupthing Bank [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. Too addy, and specific. No associated articles. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There are similar pages for Google and I therefore request to have a news page for Kaupthing dagurjonsson Why can't I have a portal for kaupthing where the news for kaupthing is displayed similar as people are doing for Google ???

I have added this independent news for Kaupthing, http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Kaupthing_Bank%27s_First_Quarter_2007_Results which should be accepted for Kaupthing, the bank is the largest one in Iceland. If you need to adjust the text for Kaupthing the do so but please do not delete.

Hello again

The reason I have created this page is that I what do display on Wikinews a page for Kaupthing that is similar as the page for Google (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Google). Under this kaupthing page I want to display the headline for most resent Kaupthing’s press releases.

The newest press releases from Kaupthing are:

 Kaupthing Bank's stake in Storebrand has reached 20.00%, from May 14, 2007 (http://www.kaupthing.com/pages/164?path=http://cws.huginonline.com/K/133944/PR/200705/1126637.xml)  Kaupthing Bank's First Quarter 2007 Results, from April 26, 2007 (http://www.kaupthing.com/pages/164?path=http://cws.huginonline.com/K/133944/PR/200704/1121963.xml)

Good sources for these press releases which we can display in Wikinews are:

Kaupthing Bank's stake in Storebrand has reached 20.00%: http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2007/05/14/afx3717301.html

Kaupthing Bank's First Quarter 2007 Results http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=bankingFinancial&storyID=2007-04-26T120105Z_01_L26571395_RTRIDST_0_SP_PAGE_012-L26571395-OISBN.XML

My latest news entry in Wikinews for Kaupthing is http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Kaupthing_Bank%27s_First_Quarter_2007_Results and I need to fix this entry: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Kaupthing_Bank%27s_First_Quarter_2007_Results which I will do.

Kaupthing Bank is the largest company in Iceland and therefore I think it is reasonable that Kaupthing is allowed to have a news page on Wikinews and that older news / press releases displayed.

We am I not allowed to do this and why is Google allowed to this ???? I think your handling on this is not fair and not independent on you behalf.

Best regards Dagur Jonsson, user name dagurjonsson

Thankyou for your response. The main problem with this is the articles don't seem to be on topic enough. Generally they are about one sentence piece of new information on it, and then a couple paragraphs about the bank. That is not very news like. Articles should stick to what is new, and leave excessive background details to to other places like wikipedia. The biggest problem is if you ignore the background details, there is almost nothing there, sugesting there is nothing new. However this deletion request is about the portal. The portal currently has no published articles on it. Portals are usually required to have a number of articles (at least 7) before creation published about the topic. This is especially true for such a specific topic like this. Bawolff ☺☻ 18:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Most of the news items raised as being article candidates are snippets of financial information that would best be put in part of a set of business briefs. To me the comparison with Google isn't valid. Google is in the public eye globally - however some of the stories there should - in my opinion - also have been relegated to a brief. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, way too specific to function efficiently as a portal, and I tend to agree with the this-may-be-part-of-a-spam-campaign comments above. For one, if the text of the portal was masquerading as an article on Wikipedia, it would be killed as spam under CSD G12. Not that such a criteria/action matters here, but I still think this is spam. Daniel 06:24, 31 May 2007 (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 16 [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.

Image:Morgan Tsvangirai poster.jpg [edit]

Movement for Democratic Change election poster, 2002, depicting their presidential candidate Morgan Tsvangirai.

The image description page claims: "Fair use to illustrate articles about the MDC or Morgan Tsvangirai". Uploaded from image on Wikipedia, which has been deleted for not having a source. Requested for speedy deletion previously.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Posters should only be fair use for related events, not for the person pictured.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral This could have been taken by the user or someone else not associated with a news organization because a news agency that pays for images, would not pay for this. Keep if proper fair use rational can be determined, and if a possible CC lisence can be established. One year to do so. DragonFire1024 06:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, this is not a justifiable use of a fair use image. It contains no article-specific rationale, and most importantly, doesn't have a source. We cannot keep this article for legal reasons, given the lack of source details, even if it was a justifiable fair use-in image. Daniel 06:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Regarding DragonFire1024's point, as its uploader I can say that I did not take the picture. It doesn't have a source because there was none provided on the Wikipedia image that I uploaded it from. As it seems to have been deleted from there and given the points made here it seems not to be fair use and so should be deleted. On the other hand, the rationale for it is that there are no free images of Morgan Tsvangirai available to my knowledge (for example the Wikipedia article about him has no picture now that this one has been deleted). I don't know whether this is a good enough reason; I suppose it depends on how easily a free replacement could be made. Tamino 19:37, 17 June 2007 (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.


Category:Cardiovascular disease [edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is Merged into Category:Health. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Encyclopedic cat. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. I would agree on removing the "died from heart attack" articles, but there are some articles on research that are useful for Portal:Disease.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with Cat:Health; Delete DragonFire1024 06:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete per DF. Daniel 06:06, 9 June 2007 (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/Deleted_Archive_17&oldid=481580"