Wikinews:Deletion requests/Archives/Passed Archive 2

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

June 14, 2005

Category:Entertainers

Not nessacary category.--Ryan524 18:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) See MJ

Category:Singers

Not nessacary category.--Ryan524 18:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) See MJ

Category:Michael Jackson

Not nessacary category.--Ryan524 18:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I made the category to list all present and future News articles concerning this Person.

Maybe this cat is not necessary for Wikinews users but it is necessary for Wikipedia readers who want to find out easily the current news on w:Miachael Jackson. A similar case was made with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II and a link to the corresponding Wikinews Category as another Wikinews editor pointed out. There are already several categories in Category:People and i especially searched for Wikinews:Category Policies and found nothing that speaks against my Categories. Kind Greetings, --Leopard 21:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You kinda need to add something to it though :-) Dan100 (Talk) 08:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done. (Although it entirely duplicates Category:Michael Jackson trial). Andrew pmk 20:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

May 7

Soldiers sue U.S. government over 'stop-loss' policy

Reason: Disputed article; although historically important as an example of inaccuracy/history rewriting in Wikinews, I suggest the article be deleted. - / 01:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete for reasons given Dan100 (Talk) 07:44, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as this article is still "news" as there are subject articles almost every day about the topic.Also,the editors worked very hard,as can be seen on the talk pages to thrash everything out and indeed,on Jan.12th, an administrator removed the dispute tag and everyone seemed happy.Somehow after that the flag came back even though the editors who had worked on the article seemed satisfied with it..and then the article went up for deletion; I can't really tell why? To me, the point is some people worked very hard on the article and it's still news so let it back in to the developing stories section. Paulrevere2005 17:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

If you think this is news, write a new article. Dan100 (Talk) 22:47, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

• Fix - The 7th and 8th paragraphs are inaccurate as they refer to a completely different lawsuit. It's trivial to fact check this and has never been disputed. Amgine would not let me fix this to conform to a policy that doesn't exist. Simply revert to this verion and it is fine. - TalkHard 21:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

It's six months old - old news; part of history now. This is a news source, not an encyclopaedia. Dan100 (Talk) 22:47, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

So? Are you suggesting we delete all articles older than 6 months? If not, why this one? - TalkHard 23:17, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment;According to our guidelines, this article should not be up for deletion;

"Dispute over article content or factual accuracy. List on Wikinews:Workspace#Ongoing disputes under "Ongoing disputes"."

I agree with TalkHard. This seems to be an unjustified deletion request and can be simply solved by reverting to the this version. Paulrevere2005 11:23, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

May 6, 2005

Pope Benedict XVI's opposition to the Masonic Order and other "religious mysticism" goes back at least 22 years

Reason: mostly original research with tenous link to an event that occured two weeks ago. Not news. Dan100 (Talk)

• Keep Paulrevere2005 02:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The "notnews" tag is an artifice that has no place on Wikinews - it is an affront to the wiki way. Labeling this story as "original research" is laughable - this story is fully sourced. Why are we quashing this story? The environment on this site is becoming increasingly hostile to non-conformist editors, which is at odds with the original premise of this site as an alternative to mainstream media. — DV 02:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

But do you believe this is a news story? Dan100 (Talk) 12:20, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. But avoid similar articles. I think that at this point the article has gotten to the point where it can be published. However I do not think WikiNews needs articles like this more then once in a while. --Cspurrier 02:55, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete While wikinews specifically wants original research, this particular article violates a range of elements on the Wikinews:Content guide and Wikinews:What Wikinews is not, specifically:
  • News stories focus on a single current event or phenomenon. 1
  • News is factual. ibid
  • Articles must be written from a neutral point of view. ibid
  • News is relevant. ibid
  • Wikinews is not a soapbox, chatroom, or discussion forum. 2
  • Just because something is a true fact doesn't mean it is suitable for inclusion here. ibid
  • Wikinews articles are not editorials. ibid
  • Wikinews is collaborative. 3

(And before someone does so, please do not interleave rebuttal into my above comment) - / 03:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep but work on POV. As stated by me elsewhere, the Cardinal's speech does not mention the Masons. The Cardinal's speech is news-- he's a world figure with a lot of power, and the speech is recent. Having read his speech, I see no link to the Masons. Pingswept 04:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Now I've removed all mention of the Masons (as Ratzinger didn't mention them himself), and highlighted that he was not Pope when he made the speech, I'm fairly happy about the article. Still, the event (his speech) happened some two weeks ago, and I don't think we should be reporting on old, past events. Dan100 (Talk) 12:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment; Now I've replaced the text which is under dispute so the community can actually read the article in dispute.(90% of the article and the images were deleted by the disputer yesterday).Paulrevere2005 23:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

• Will Dan100 or Amgine please remove the "delete" tag as the 7 days is more than up, & since Dan100 removed all the original work, it should've only been 3 days, and the consensus is keep. Paulrevere2005 19:39, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep 4-2 - / 00:33, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

U.N. reports Afghan opium production is up again.

REASON -- Pure opinion piece; doesn't seem to have any news in it. The 'UN report' (which, as far as I can tell, is a factsheet) was put out four months ago! Dan100 (Talk) 17:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• ARGUMENTS --

opposed. Not copyvio, has sources, not defamatory. My understanding is that these are the deletion qualifiers.

This is not too say I think it's a good article at all. It is POV, and poorly written, and old news, so I recommend moving it to Developing Stories with a criticism on the talk page. I do not think it should be added to the main page until it is improved. (Not sure how the "old news" problem could be fixed.) Pingswept 19:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not sure how the "old news" problem could be fixed. - indeed, which is why I think it should be canned. Or just left to be forgotten about... Dan100 (Talk) 19:11, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Generally, I think deletion should be reserved for the truly awful stuff. I suggest we just let it rot for a few weeks, then throw it out. Pingswept 00:20, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Opposed;Its amusing to watch the censorship mentality at work.Step one, If the article doesn't qualify for deletion under the existing criteria (Not copyvio, has sources, not defamatory); hell,just make up some new rules. Then if it doesn't even meet those rules ;e.g."pure opinion piece"..throw in some other criticism like"old news"..of course it doesn't matter that it isn't old news if its new info to most people..Then finally,to the back-up tool of all censorship control freaks "well we have no real justification (for deletion) so we'll just use our powers arbitrarily (to "let it rot"). Come on guys,you're better than this; if you don't like it,don't censor it, EDIT IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Paulrevere2005

If the article were deleted, that would be censorship. It hasn't been deleted, so where is the censorship? Pingswept 01:59, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OPPOSED! Wikinews' criteria for deletion do not include the reasons given by Dan100.Paulrevere2005 03:24, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Amgine did a good job of rewriting this article, so I have to agree with Paulrevere2005 that this article should not be deleted. Good job, Amgine. — DV 09:31, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - valid topic. But the article is VERY POORLY WRITTEN and needs a major overhaul for clarity. -- Davodd | Talk 09:53, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Commment - could become a good feature article (our first?) Dan100 (Talk) 09:12, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

While this story is sitting here,a full week after the first draft of this was written; today the AP broke this "opinion piece" wide open;at least the story is out now, too bad not via wikinews. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&ncid=693&e=4&u=/ap/20050305/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_drug_report"By GEORGE GEDDA, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - More than three years after installing a pro-U.S. government, Afghanistan (news - web sites) has been unable to contain opium poppy production and is on the verge of becoming a narcotics state, a presidential report said Friday.The report said the area in Afghanistan devoted to poppy cultivation last year set a record of more than 510,000 acres, more than triple the figure for 2003. Opium poppy is the raw material for heroin. The Afghan narcotics situation "represents an enormous threat to world stability," the report said. It listed opium production at 5,445 tons, 17 times more than second-place Myanmar. The massive study, covering the state of illicit narcotics in 2004 in virtually all countries, was transmitted to Congress by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) on behalf of President Bush (news - web sites)."Paulrevere2005

Paulrevere2005 - do not be abusive, on this or any other page. The AP story refers to a U.S. Presidential Report just released - new news - as compared with the UNODC report - released in November. - Amgine 04:18, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OPPOSED. I think this article is totally valid and should definitely be rewritten to take into consideration the new information available. Anyone who thinks that the explosion of opium production in Afghanistan post U.S. invasion is an "opinion" is in complete denial of fact. --Howrealisreal 04:28, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ok,Amgine,I erased itPaulrevere2005

• Why is this afghanistan opium production data "old" news when reported by one of our reporters 2 weeks ago and "new" news when reported by the White House yesterday?Paulrevere2005

Paulrevere2005, if you bother to read the State Department report, it's a comprehensive annual report on Narcotics Control that goes beyond opium production in Afghanistan, and is also a newer document.

Also, as far as I can tell, Secretary of State Rice is not a reporter. When she submitted the new State Department report on narcotics control to Congress, she was not acting as a reporter, she was fulfilling her official duties as the head of her department, and making news in the process.

But I don't see the point of beating this dead horse into the ground. If your agenda is to discredit the Bush administration's handling of policy towards Afghanistan, or its handling of the "drug war" in general, ironically you'll find that the State Department's own report does a better job of exposing the administration's failed policies, and it is more specific than the older UN report to boot. If you're fixated on the opium problem, this section of the report even admits that they have little clue what to do to reduce the production of opium poppy, due to "political sensitivities" - which is another way of admitting that they can't maintain their partnership with the Afghani government for fighting terror if they piss off too many Afghani farmers.

Rather than accusing everyone of "censorship" and "pravda"-like behavior, why not try to frame your talking points in terms of this newer report in a brand new article? You can protect your article from the NPOV enforcers by citing relevant data from this latest report. By selectively choosing which parts of the report to cite, you could do very well at pushing your political agenda with this story, all while staying nominally within the bounds of NPOV.

That is, until the next person came along and decided to add a few counter-points that may not fit with your agenda - that wild and crazy NPOV is a double-edged sword, isn't it?

The bottom line is that you can't control the spin of the stories you post here for more than a very short time - it's a wiki - but I'm interested to see how your attempts to ignore that fact turn out.

Good luck,

— DV 15:24, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If I have a political agenda, I don't know what it is; but I find it very interesting that I am being accused of having one.That just reinforces my opinion that our free press is under attack by a culture where if someone brings out a fact that shows a government screw-up or incompetance, others assume that person has an "agenda" and is "anti-government" or "anti-bush".The fact I am even addressing the "agenda" issue shows that a nazi/stasi society could be growing up around us...and that ,DV, could be the biggest stealth story of all.Paulrevere2005

A new article on this topic has been started by HowRealIsReal, so I'm going to delete the old one unless someone objects. This archive will stand as a record of the debate. Objections? Pingswept 01:13, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Pingswept. It's not much of a debate, but I appreciate the sentiment.

Paulrevere2005 seems to think the seeds of the Fourth Reich are brewing here on Wikinews, which is a little melodramatic for my taste, but then I don't hang out on Democratic Underground, so I must be a Nazi myself and just not realize it yet.

Paulrevere2005, don't worry, everyone has a political agenda whether they know it or not - it's nothing to be ashamed of. Please don't allow me to discourage you. I'll be fascinated to read your next piece exposing how we are all little Eichmanns in this new Nazi society you envision is being created all around us. — DV 01:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Pingswept, I have no objections at all.

• DV,please just read the words.If I thought the people here were nazish,I wouldn't be here. I am just saying that today, IN MY OPINION, only the government,ala Rice,is allowed to criticize the government without assumptions being raised about the critic.If you really think about it, I think you will see that you never had any real reason to assume I have an "agenda" and that is all I was reacting to..not to you personally, but to the culture we live in. So,please just face a few facts that I think COULD mean we're headed for a police state;

1. People are being locked up with no charges and no trials and moved to "undisclosed locations". 2. Police can come into your house(in USA),SEARCH AND SEIZE, and leave again and never tell you they were there. 3. 112 people are in jail in the USA for LIFE for SHOPLIFTING under the "3 strikes and out" laws. I believe these COULD be the early symptoms of a "police state"aka nazi/stasi in the making. Does me having this opinion mean I have an agenda? or am a democrat? If you think so,then its worse than I thought.Paulrevere2005

Passed 4-1 - Amgine 08:39, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

MS-13 "gangsters" and Arizona "vigilantes" prepare to rumble

Reason: Copyright violation: lead para is verbatim copy of source lead para, substantial additional copy-paste. - Amgine 17:36, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

is it ok now? Paulrevere2005 12:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

TBH I don't think we have to list copyvios deletion, do we? I understand there might be something along the lines of deleting the original article to remove the copyrighted text from the History then moving the /temp into its place, but that's part of the copyvio-fixing process and doesn't need a listing here. Dan100 (Talk) 16:56, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since it is becoming dated, and has been re-written, I will re-post it. Any objections,please advise. Paulrevere2005 21:00, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Passed 1 - 1 - Amgine 04:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 21

Wikinews:Story preparation/Funeral of Pope John Paul II takes place

It was a prepared story, prepared by someone else, that I published with some add on. AnyFile 12:28, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I do not how the procedure is, in this case, so maybe it should be kept. AnyFile 12:28, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Next time, rename the story to the main article namespace. Don't copy&paste it. Uncle G 10:21, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• <sigh> keep, with a link from the talk page of the published story. - Amgine 16:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Passed 1-1, no clear consensus to delete. - Amgine 18:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First Iraq Medal of Honor recipient receives memorial headstone at Arlington

Irredeemable propaganda(opinion i.e US government opinion) piece. NPOV means NPOV. Would we allow this story if the sides of this event were reversed? If it was one of bin ladens press releases heaping praise upon one of his "warriors" who fought and killed or blew up dozens of our guys? I am concerned that if we start reporting these type of staged events with references of the other side being the "enemy", we'll have to do it for hezballah too to maintain overall NPOV. Paulrevere2005 12:58, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer if the story could be balanced. I looked briefly, it is very one-sided in terms of not representing the POV of those the soldier fought against, but the story is about the medal ceremony, not the entire war.

I think it would be very interesting if we had a story of the other side, and I would run it, not delete it. We don't have such a story, but I think the argument is invalid. If a contributor wrote a suitable piece on an equivalent ceremony from 'the opposition' it would be appropriate for wikinews to run.

The problems this story has internally may be recovered to some degree by attribution. The story itself is very long, leading to perhaps a perception that wikinews focuses too much on pro-US, but I think the story could be shortened without loss of content, on purely technical editorial grounds. I do not like the idea of wikinews stories being 'a particular length and no longer' .. but it should be shortened on the technical grounds. We do not have the space limitations that a hradcopy publication has.

Once these things are done, and any other balancing that can be done within the text (I told you I didn't really read it) I think look again, and if it still has the air of groundless propoganda, discuss more. I doubt that there is simply no story, the guy got some major medal, sounds like a reasonable story, unless wikinews adopts a 'no honour of the dead' stories as a policy .. and then what would be the next policy suggestion? I don't know .. more open, not less open, in my opinion. Users can learn to click the back button.

If the front page starts filling up with these types of stories, then we have a problem. One is not a problem. - Simeon 14:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Medal of Honor winners don't come along every day, so I don't think we need to be concerned about seeing such stories so often that they fill the front page. — DV 18:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep: Simeon's post above is very much on top of the implications . -edw 15:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep. A funeral is a staged event. It's called a "ceremony" for a reason. Most of them are run according to a tight script. So what if this story does not cover the entire war? Must every article on Iraq cover the entire conflict, lest it be accused of POV?

Tagging this story for deletion is not productive if there are no sources to be found with a different opinion about this specific event. Are we supposed to throw in some random anti-war rhetoric to balance it out? Or are we to act as censors because we don't like the quotes?

This argument is a waste of time if no one is prepared to dig up sources with opposing viewpoints about this specific story. It's not as if someone tried to do so and found their contribution was censored.

Also, I don't know what led to the mis-impression that stories written about the insurgent heroes would not be welcome on Wikinews, but I welcome such stories if they have supporting citations, so an imaginary prohibition on stories about the insurgent heroes is not a valid reason to censor this story.

Censorship is not the answer. Censorship has a tendency to bite you in the ass when you want to publish your own story later on and find that the censorship you once advocated is now operating against you rather than for you. — DV 17:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment; Ok,I'm convinced by the comments above.I will remove the tag now. Paulrevere2005 17:55, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  Ok I see Simeon has already removed my tag and inserted a cleanup tag, which seems ok to me. Paulrevere2005 18:04, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep. - newsworthy event - actually a historic event as the Iraq War now is part of U.S. history. -- Davodd | Talk 00:46, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Passed 3-1 - Amgine 18:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Flora springing into Spring in Mid-Atlantic coastal region, USA

• REASON: Not newsworthy. Spring comes every year, after all... Dan100 (Talk) 08:17, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Borderline case, but there is some useful information on flowering plants for locals. -- Davodd | Talk 08:27, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't get outdoors very much, so I appreciate seeing news about what's going on outside. Disclosure: I have a personal bias in favor of news about the weather. — DV 13:16, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Its not hard news, but an odd soft news story here and there is no harm. → CGorman (Talk) 14:25, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Weather is a common topic in the news, and spring has after all arrived. DouglasGreen 16:32, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • You mean Autumn has come, just some people are living on the wrong side of the world :P ~The bellman | Smile 03:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  That's why I changed the headline Dan100 (Talk) 09:56, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It's clearly headlined as a regional story and one should not discourage original regional reports. It should, however, probably be categorised as such rather than as Category:North America. By the way, it is snowing today in Ontario. DoubleBlue 21:28, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: In view of the above comments, I wouldn't object to someone removing the delete tag early from this story, although I think this discussion should be kept here for the full seven days then archived as a record. Dan100 (Talk) 09:56, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Passed 5-1 - Amgine 17:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Time for North Americans to spring ahead one hour!

• REASON: Not newsorthy. Seriously folks, what's next - sun to rise tomorrow? Full moon tonight? Dan100 (Talk) 09:53, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Hundreds of news outlets are covering this story. I understand that Dan100 isn't American, but even The Guardian is covering daylight savings time. (The Guardian is hardly a pro-American news outlet.) Dan100, please stop listing articles about American events for deletion just because they don't personally affect you. We get that you're not American, so there is no need to trumpet that fact every day. (That is, if you really have no political agenda.) — DV 10:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  Just to follow up, I found that DST is also observed in Canada and Israel, so this is truly an international story. There is also some controversy about DST time as discussed in the Jerusalem Post article. So this is a newsworthy story. — DV 11:28, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Remove Come on, should we add a news each time there is a daylight saving operation? Less than a month ago it happened in Italy just to make an example. It has nothing to do with pro/anti americanism, I think it's just a useless news for Wikinews, that's it. CarrKnight

  Alan makes clear that he is from Houston, Texas on his user page. So he wrote an article about something he knew about. That kind of activity should be praised and encouraged, not derided with snickering and insulting comments about its worth.

  If we can only post stories that affect every potential Wikinews reader, we won't have many article submissions. DST is a huge deal. Please re-read the article now that I've added more info and see if it doesn't meet your personal test of news-worthiness more effectively. — DV 12:21, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  I didn't notice you are a new contributor, CarrKnight. It's interesting that this is your first post on Wikinews. Welcome to the site! — DV 12:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  In my experience from WIkipedia, new users who only vote in contentious polls are usually sock puppets. -- Davodd | Talk 00:23, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep "Not newsworthy"? Every news source in North America covers this event! DoubleBlue 15:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Dan, your letting us (the Europeans) down! → CGorman (Talk) 16:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep .. as the story's author, I myself was reminded by a major news source, Yahoo news, the cite on the article, to turn my clock ahead. I think people should expect to be informed by their news sources. Anyone who may have forgotten about DST might thank that source which reminded them with future visits. Frankly I didn't ever think this story would cause contention! I think, for what legs it has left, it should have that flag taken down and we should keep the article. --HiFlyer 16:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: OK, Ok. I would not object to the tag being removed early considering the apparent consensus (but please keep this record of discussion). I've never actually seen a news report (on any medium) for the clocks changing before (maybe a mention at the end of BBC TV news here in the UK), but first time for everything... Dan100 (Talk) 17:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  In the future, you can save the rest of the community a lot of time if you first check out a story for yourself, instead of relying upon your limited personal experience as your only guide. The world is a lot bigger than the UK. A simple search on Google News could have shown you that this story was newsworthy. — DV 18:45, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Not all news is important to all people. Some people don't consider sports coverage to be news. Some pople don't consider performing arts coverage to be news. But that doesn't mean we should not allow stories on such things. The simple answer is: write the stories you consider to be news in hopes that others will do likewise while skipping the stories you don't care to read. -- Davodd | Talk 00:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Passed 5-2 - Amgine 18:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)