Wikinews:Deletion requests/Archives/Passed Archive 4

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

January 28

UK R&B Singer Ms Dynamite Sentenced for Assault

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is keep and publish. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

—MESSEDROCKER (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Old and abandoned.
• Publish It looks done, aside from stupid title capitalization. Nyarlathotep 19:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Publish Not the greatest article, but good enough to publish. fixed capitilization. Bawolff ☺☻ 19:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep minor copyedits, then publish. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 15:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

January 27

Danish clothing company sells T-shirts to support FARC and PFLP

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is speedy keep for publish. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

Delete Old and abandoned. Jason Safoutin 01:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• publish might be old, but I think that it can be published Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 03:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Ditto Brian. It's not that bad, someone probably just forgot {{publish}} --Deprifry|+T+ 10:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedily published as per B & D. Nyarlathotep 19:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia Germany is forbidden to link to de.wikipedia.org via injunction

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is death keep for cutie. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

Article has been replaced by Berlin court issues provisional order against the Wikimedia Foundation (which has been published) Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 22:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep turn it into a redirect to the merged article, to preserve the edit history. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 17:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

January 23

Allegations of three candidates' drug ties resurface in Haitian presidential race

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

204.8.195.187 14:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

abandoned --Cspurrier 15:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, this is a cool one! It looks like an non-anon added a POV comment, so the article was taged. We should ideally move the editorial to the top of the talk page & incorperate it as original reporting. I'm not sure the article even needs to change much to incorperate the original reporting, as I've not seeing some of his objections in the article (campaign financing?). Nyarlathotep 20:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedily Kept Letter was probably not to us, so we probably don't need to do anything about it. I've moved the letter to Talk:Allegations of three candidates' drug ties resurface in Haitian presidential race/Guy Philippe letter. I've also deleted it from the history of the article, as it may violate a copyright of either the Miamy Herald or Guy Philippe. Nyarlathotep 16:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

January 22

Category:Augusto_Pinochet

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

—MESSEDROCKER (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is appropriate for individuals to have their own category, but others may disagree.

Make a subcat of obituraries (he is dead you know...) just kidding (: (really hoping this is the guy who had all those fake perody death articles otherwise comment sounds mean). I don't see any problems with excess number of categories, but this is so minnor I don't care what happens to it. Bawolff ☺☻ 19:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Nah, I think cats about indivduals are OK. Just look at our German friends who apparently have a cat for every person ever named in an article (Example) --Deprifry|+T+ 20:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

He is an infamous person, and we do have a few articles on him, so I think we should keep it for now Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 19:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Keepditto Brian's comment. Neutralizer 11:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

January 20

Canadian teen faces US War Crimes court

Abandoned--Cspurrier 15:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I agree. also old. Jason Safoutin 22:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - neutralizer seems to have not made any recent changes, and in this case i agree with amgine and noone has claimed that we (together) are wrong. Now i'm working on the page: new NPOV name: Canadian teen faces disputed US military tribunal. Boud 17:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Boud seems to have done a good job so far in taking this away from an article that gave the impression that a teenager was being prosecuted for similar crimes to the Nazis. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Bound seems to be moving it along. Nyarlathotep 20:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Lack of progress in due time. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 03:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree further. Jason Safoutin 03:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I don't think 6 days is abnormal for such an article, i.e. no time pressure, and began life in a POV state. Wikis should be relaxing. Nyarlathotep 16:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Boud did some good work and I will help out a little too if I can find time tomorrow. Looking at the amount of contradiction in the news coverage and the secracy surrounding the exact charges this is a difficult (but important) story to cover. --vonbergm 03:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep No longer abandoned. --Deprifry|+T+ 18:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is keep. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request. --Deprifry|+T+ 06:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

January 19

CNN embracing the right-wing?

Borderline editorial, contains some very slim factual information, makes assertions and is widely disputed as even probable. I say delete. (I've detailed on user talk page on how this article could be salvaged) --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 02:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• "Slim factual assertions"? "Widely disputed"? Almost the entire article is direct quotes with links to audio recordings of them at the bottom. What exactly do you dispute? AaronSw 02:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but needs NPOV editing and title.--Eloquence 02:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

*Delete Too POV. Really is not worthy of "news" and is very opinionated.

• Keep edits made and I like it DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 09:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• • The political composition of one of America's three biggest news networks isn't worthy of "news"? What opinions are in the article? AaronSw 02:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Well without citing who the critics are, all we could know is that HE (the one who created the article) is the critic. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 02:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? In everything except the first (summary) sentence, critics are carefully cited, named, and quoted. AaronSw 02:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

WHO FROM FOX NEWS...WHAT/WHO CRITICS... DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 03:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Why are you shouting? - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 08:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep article has been improved through collaboration. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 08:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep has been improved into a good article, I would have moved to published if it wasn't listed here. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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

--Deprifry|+T+ 21:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

January 12

Homeless man beaten

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is no consensus. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

—MESSEDROCKER (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This is yet another hit and run from 169.244.143.115, I've already put a comment on this user's talk page about their disruptive behaviour, and we've already deleted a number of the "stubs" he's created. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

"hit and run" i object. brian so be it my "point of view" belives homeless man beaten is sad because come on its sad news... brian can you see the light i hope you refresh the articles. and edit iam busy and trying to add as i go can you ask anymore... please...

You don't seem to be so busy that you can't create a half-dozen story stubs per day. I still have over 100 pages to read as part of an ongoing Wikinews investigation, and there are not people hanging around here to complete articles for you. Please remember this, and if you cut back to doing one article that you finished off yourself, you would be a very welcome contributor. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I will let you do the heavy lifting as i support you all and take your advice as i go... thanks. it looks like you are already working on articles??? kentucky and gangs.

January 11

7 year old chased by police

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is keep as a redirect. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

—MESSEDROCKER (talk) 04:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone caught this as a copyvio, I agree - although the copyvio may have been edited since initial creation. To clean out the history containing the copyvio this should be deleted. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This is getting messed about at the moment, and may not need deleted. However the history will need links cleaned out which are copyvio. How should that be handled? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think Cspurier deleted and undeleted it to do that. but admins can still see - special:undelete/7 year old chased by police. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd keep seeing as it was fixed up. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Philippines

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is keep as a redirect. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

• Not news and not neutral at all Jacques Divol 11:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not news. Nyarlathotep 15:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedily moved too: a subpage of the user. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

User:202.69.163.8/Philippines

January 6

template:apasource

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is no consensus (so it shouldn't hurt to keep). Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

—MESSEDROCKER (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

we always cite with template:source. having two is confusing. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Can be used for citing offline publications which is allowed and encouraged per WN:CS. --Deprifry|+T+ 13:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Theoretical keep. We probably need more than one type of source tag as bibliographies are not entirely trivial beasts. But we also need a page explaining how various types of source tags work. Nyarlathotep 18:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

For a list of available source templates, please see Wikinews:Template messages/Citations for articles. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 08:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I always assumed we'd src all articles in the same style. I personnally think that being inconsitant woould look unprofessional. but then again, maybe an offline src should be sourced in that fashion. I'm changing my vote to Neutral Bawolff ☺☻ 01:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we need to be as consistent as possible, but diffrent source types necessitate diffrent soruce tempaltes. I dislike the APA style of listing the year immediately after the author, I see what purpose it serves for the APA, but doubt that it surves that purpose here, as news articles have very few sources. IMHO, the year should be listed after the journal, as its part of the infomation one may use to locate the article. However, I'm not going to change anything since I don't know how newspapers usually do it. If they all use APA, maybe we should too. If news papers don't use APA, or arn't uniform, then I suggest moving the year; thus also making the style more consistant with our online sources, and renaming the template. I should also point out that wikipedia has numerous templates for citation. So I should change my vote to Neutral too.  :P Nyarlathotep 14:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

January 5

Category:Rape

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is keep 6-3. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

—MESSEDROCKER (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

If we sub-divide Category:Crime and law by individual crime we'll need Category:Murder, Category:Suicide, Category:Assault, Category:Arson, etc, etc. I'm bringing it to DR as not many people seemed to have noticed the discussion on the article's talk page. Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. We support multiple levels of categories. Just as there's Category:Mexico and Category:North America, we can have Category:Rape and Category:Crime and law. -- IlyaHaykinson 17:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep, but make it a subcat of Category:Crime and law. Brian New Zealand 17:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep But all articles in that cat should also be in crime and law. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - we do not currently use most subcategories except in geographical use (portals) and in certain cases which are regularly described as POV use. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 23:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. We are currently un-expert in the application of categories, but I find sub-topics useful to tuck a story (for the uneven record) in a sub-Topic, while at the same time applying a different top-level topic to the story. -Edbrown05 23:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for now. Why not try more subcategories if people actually use them? Nyarlathotep 18:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - While it's currently not being used, these kind of things are works in development. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this specific cat, however support sub-cats. Murder, arson would be good... but in the case of rape, rarely do they fall as "newsworthy"... such a category is just unnecessary. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 02:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

January 4

category:Climate Change

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is merging, see final statement. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

Seems to duplicate category:Global warming. Merge & Delete . Bawolff ☺☻ 04:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Yup, Merge & Delete, however I think you should keep Climate change instead of Global warming as some of the effects that have been predicted would include much colder weather in some regions. Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, rename & Delete delete category:Global warming, and replace it with this, this is a better name. Brian New Zealand 17:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone dug up Template:issues/Global warming for Australian Labor Party announces new Climate Change Policy, I'd like to fix that with this, can whoever closes this - and hopefully does the category delete of Global warming - let me know on my talk page. I'll change my prototype infobox to use Category:Climate change and update all unprotected articles with the category, if any are protected I'll stick them on Admin alerts. By the way, the category should have the capitalization on "Change" dropped so it is Category:Climate change --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice, but I think the image need replacing or updating, at the very least so that is says "Climate change" instead of "global warming." --Naught101 01:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and Rename - Category:Climate change would be the most appropriate name. global warming is merely the most acknowledged aspect of climate change. Climate change includes other aspects, such as more severe storm, droughts, and hot and cold snaps, as well as rising temperatures and sea levels. Worldwide the usage of the term "Global warming" to describe the effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions is beign phased out in favour of "Climate change". On the otherhand, you could keep both, and use Category:Global Warming as a sub-category ofCategory:Climate change. --Naught101 01:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect? I too feel "Climate change" is a better name, but "Global warming" has considerable work put into it. Can we temporarily make Climate Change a redirect to Global Warming? And hope that someone does the work to reverse the redirect evenentually? Nyarlathotep 18:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Final statement - 2 to 1, "Climage Change" is a more favored name than "Global warming". However, "Climate change" is more appropriate per our style guide, so both Category:Climage Change and Category:Global warming are going to be merged into the new Category:Climate change, with the lowercase "c". —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

January 1

Template:Passed-dr

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is keep -- now this template will have to be applied to the talk page of this template. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

—MESSEDROCKER (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I created this template for kept articles, but it's not really used by anything. (See Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Passed-dr.) —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Its used by two articles, as far as i can tell. Won't it be more useful in time to come, when we get more keep dr's? However you probaly know better then me as you've been handling dr's recently. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - though it should be added to the talk page, not the article itself. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 20:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Seems like a good template. I didn't know about it, then again, I don't know about most templates ;) --TUFKAAP 20:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the template sorting situation on wikinews is a mess. did you know about template:extreme templating, template:click or template:esoteric? they make me laugh. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

December 29

New text message encryption method developed

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is keep 3-1. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

—MESSEDROCKER (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The source listed was published on November 30, effectively declaring that this is olds rather than news. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Now that it's written in a right context (that I didn't realize then), I guess we can keep it. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep

This story fits perfectly with our invitation for submissions;"Do you know of an issue that has been forgotten".[1]

"What we want from YOU! We want you to write articles for Wikinews that:..

You feel isn't getting adequate coverage: Do you know of an issue that has been forgotten or is not getting enough attention in the rest of the press? Here's your chance to tell the world!"

Also, this news could be big and is not as time sensitive as other news. Neutralizer 20:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral however it reads a bit adverstismently in my opinion. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• wtf, vote? are you out of your mind? you want news or you wanna vote on it.... -Edbrown05 21:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm assuming that's a keep vote? Besides, I like the article too. Just that under current policy, it shouldn't be here. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose if not abandoned. I might support setting the date line to November 30; if people want to vote on that. Anyway, this is exactly the reason why I suggest changing the content guide to allow historical articles [2] ( see also ). Wikinews should serve more than just a "news of the moment" function, one should also be able to look stuff up. Nyarlathotep 22:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't get European news in my neck of the woods. -Edbrown05 00:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

User:MateoP/Augusto Pinochet dies

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is keep, although as a result of a DR retraction. If you feel this article deserves deletion, feel free to re-nominate it. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

—MESSEDROCKER (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Request retracted by NeoAmsterdam 01:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

December 27

Data Retention Directive passed by EU Parliament

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is the problems ended up getting fixed (albeit a bit late) and got published. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

—MESSEDROCKER (talk) 07:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Abandoned. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 05:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Nope, I just picked it back up today.  :) It looks pretty much done at this point actually. Most of the concerns were addressed. Nyarlathotep 18:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Alright. Speedy keep.

Twenty thousand gather at the gates of Fort Benning to protest School of the Americas

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

—MESSEDROCKER (talk) 07:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Abandoned. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 05:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC) I withdraw this deletion request because it's a published article. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

December 21

Category:2003 Iraq pre-war intelligence

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is undeleted - 4 support, 3 oppose. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

—MESSEDROCKER (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The corresponding template has been undeleted. Due to deletion of this category, the template is empty. The politics and conflicts section is empty (and has therefore been removed) The category is usefull to readers. Kevin Baas^talk 16:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose This category is not a news category, but a POV. News categories discuss news events, not interpretations of what those events are or indicate. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 16:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Then what is the correct category for such news? 2003 Iraq war? Nyarlathotep 12:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Hesitantly support I geuss I agree with Nyarlathotep on this one. but, if this undelete passes, its going to be hard to undelete, as you can't via normal methods. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I do sympathize with those who want the category back, but it is my opinion that this particular infobox needs maintained manually. The best stories that are indisputably linked to the topic should be put in the infobox then it is a POV issue whether or not you can justify putting the infobox on another story. Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The damage is done, and probably rightfully so. Oppose. -Edbrown05 03:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Expanded Comment I don't necessarily support or oppose, but I feel that all such articles should go under some infobox with an automatic listing feature. 2003 Iraq war isn't unreasonable, as they do represent a part of that whole saga. if we don't seperate the current Iraqi insurgents, who also deserve an infobox, from 2003 Iraq war, then we should not seperate pre-war either. OTOH, it is a bit POV to seperate the current insurgents, and not seperate pre-war too. Just be consistent. Assuming that we are to have only one infobox, any manually maintained list for 2003 Iraq war should contain some major articles from all three periods, to present a balanced picture. Nyarlathotep 05:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. The media world has definitely been discussing pre-war intelligence, as have various government officials and non-goverment observers. There is nothing wrong with grouping Wikinews stories based on this topic. -- IlyaHaykinson 09:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support: Nothing to add to IlyaHaykinson's comments. --vonbergm 15:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

December 18

===Flooding in Nakhon Sri Thammarat=== I don't think this event actually happeded. no sources origionally listed, thought I found a source, but thats from a month before this happeded. Official weather website says something other then is claimed by in the article. I think its a fake. User who created it is no where to be found. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose Please check the sources I've added on the talk page, these are from what's listed on the reference desk for Thailand. Brian McNeil / ^talk 07:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC) additional I have added sources to the story and expanded it some, can someone copyedit to make it read better and remove the tags? Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

When I searched for it on the 16th Google couldn't find anything. I withdraw my dr.Bawolff ☺☻ 23:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

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

--Deprifry|+T+ 18:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Senate rejects short-term extension of the USA PATRIOT Act

Abandoned. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 03:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

have added content. Doldrums 07:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose: expanded, sourced, published (which I'm withdrawing because I didn't see someone had removed the {{Dr}}, will restore that.) - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 20:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose: Its hardly Abandoned Nyarlathotep 12:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

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

--Deprifry|+T+ 18:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

November 18

Template:2003_Iraq_pre-war_intelligence_infobox (Undeletion request)

Was deleted without consensus. Consensus is approx. 80%, this was 50-50: 4 keep, 4 delete (JWSchmidt's vote was obviously a keep vote.)

Evidence:

• [3]
• [4]
• [5]

Kevin Baas^talk 16:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete. Consensus wasn't there on deleting. -- IlyaHaykinson 19:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• I didn't want to delete it in the first place, so I'll go with undelete'. Please note that we forgot to orphan it before we deleted it so theres some red links in archived articles where template was used. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Was not cleaned up to the NPOV standards, contained many irrelevant articles and links. --Mrmiscellanious 22:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Wikinews does not require a super-majority for deletion. - Amgine 01:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• ""Undelete"" - 172.177.30.116 22:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. I would like to point out that Vonbergm went to use this on an article recently and nobody else commented on the talk page. I have pointed him to this page and suggested he request someone restore the template in his userspace for significant cleanup. I'd add to that a comment that I would not be surprised to see a NPOV tag on an article categorised into the infobox and removal of the corresponding category being the required action.Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Closing Statement: Original vote was 5-4 (counting nominator) for deletion. By contrast this has 3 (4 if you count the IP)-2 for undeletion. If the former is a vote to delete, the latter is a vote for undeletion. So I'm going to undelete this template. --Deprifry|+T+ 19:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

November 4

Armed conflicts in the world down by 40% since early 1990s.

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

—MESSEDROCKER (talk) 02:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Please see the talk page. Stale story worthy of 3 or 4 different tags related to talk page concerns by 4 different editors. Neutralizer 19:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose Deletion -- Stories like this never become stale enough not to publish. I will contact each of the editors to see what their current objections are. --Chiacomo (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Neutralizer, the article was never tagged by any editor (other than yourself, recently) for NPOV concerns or other content concerns. The only tag to appear on the article was {{abandoned}} -- and Cspurrier later removed the tag and published the article. This smells of a spurious DR -- why don't we simply to try to get the article to what you feel is a publishable state? --Chiacomo (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment I endorse Chiacomo's contacting of the 4 editors (as stated above by him) and I will readily abide by their consensus. There is no reason at all to be smelling or assuming anything spurious is happening here; Assume good faith. Also, please note I never said it had been tagged (although you did mention above it was tagged abandoned at one point); I said it was worthy of tags according to the talk page comments. I am sure any objective fresh eyes on this article will quickly see it is no where near up to the standards of wikinews for the very reasons outlined in great detail by 4 editors on the talk page.Please see the talk page before voting.Neutralizer 22:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Questions:: <Grin> Can we assume good faith and publish this article based on the fact that no one tagged it? --Chiacomo (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I will abide by the consensus of the 4 editors Chiacomo said he would be contacting as of 3 hours ago. Neutralizer 22:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

User:NeuronExMachina has no problem publishing the article. --Chiacomo (talk) 05:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure good faith is almost always made, however there are concerns with the article still. Now, I would vote for a Keep and hope people will work to address the issues brought by other users. When it is complete, publish it - but don't touch the date. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 23:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

What exactly are the concerns about this article, now? Please make notes on the article's talk page. Concerning the date: I hadn't thought about bumping the date, but, the topic is just as current today as it was when the article was originally written. I don't see a problem in bumping the date as it was never officially published. --Chiacomo (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

There are concerns from me already on the talk page of the article. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 23:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I would also note that proposer {{publish}}ed this article on October 19. --Chiacomo (talk) 05:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

That was before editors' talk page comments (which made/make sense to me). Neutralizer 15:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

It appears that you didn't agree with these comments on the talk page -- they existed before you published the article. So, you must have been especially concerned about this comment (which I think was addressed by adding additional sources from MSM) and this comment concerning article formatting. --Chiacomo (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Before voting; Please read the talk page; I agree with the concerns on the talk page. I am not continuing this distracting 2 party debate. I will accept the will of the community. Neutralizer 18:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Amgine / ^talk 05:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

SpaceX launches Falcon I rocket

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

—MESSEDROCKER (talk) 12:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Abandoned (Oct. 21) Article pre-written for launch, launch has been delayed for at least a month (originally scheduled for January 2005, so...) - Amgine / ^talk 03:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Their website says their aiming for a late November, early December launch date. I think this article should stick around for a while longer, so I'm voting keep. --Deprifry|+T+ 22:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Word. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Well written, just needs to happen now. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 19:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

November 2

IRA weapons decommissioned

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

—MESSEDROCKER (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Duplicate, all info in other article. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 11:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep --Cspurrier 20:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Covers article from different angle. - Amgine / ^talk 01:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Shouldn't those two articles be merged, then? POV should be neutral in both stories. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 19:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

October 30, 2005

Template:Immigration australia infobox

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is keep. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 11:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Template focuses on advocacy of specific POV of an Australian issue. NPOV states: "Policy entails that it is our job to speak for the other side." Clearly this template violates this element of the NPOV policy. - Amgine / ^talk 05:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep From looking at it, I can't see what POV it is pushing other than that Immigration is an issue for Australia. Brianmc 08:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC) Efdit done to clarify vote, comment still stands Brianmc 00:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep there is no pov pushing here at all. I can not even find the phrase the nominator refers to; even so, taking 13 words out of context and implying that those 13 words are the essence of a long and ambiguous document like NPOV is in itself asserting the nominator's pov rather than simply referring the community to the NPOV document in general which contains numerous references, explanations and exceptions which clearly provide for such a benign info-box as this one.Neutralizer 13:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Valid infobox imho, so keep. --Deprifry|+T+ 13:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• keep - The infobox contains articles in Category:Australia and Category:Immigration - the only POV problem I can think of is that articles that appear in those categories focus on a particular issue, and that is hardly the fault of the infobox. It's more an issue of the infobox revealing a bias in article creation. - Borofkin 22:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete category and infobox. Unnecessary items for infoboxes, category. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 01:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Um, which category are you proposing to delete? Category:Australia or Category:Immigration? Or both? - Borofkin 02:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Infobox, then :P. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 03:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - This infobox doesn't use highly specialized categories, though the "Immigration" cat may not be widely used (16 articles at this time). I think some time could be invested in determining what constituted a "top level" category... In my mind, DPLs in infoboxes should only use top level cats, as, as it has been stated by others, other categories are less likely to be used. This is a Weak delete because I don't think infoboxes should be deleted simply because the stories listed in them (using the DPL process) exhibit a POV in their totality -- this isn't the fault of the infobox or it's creator (unless the creator created new categories with the sole purpose of creating a POV infobox). I'm rambling. --Chiacomo (talk) 04:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Template:Human rights united states infobox

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is keep. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 12:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Template's purpose is to imply the USA is a human rights abuser. NPOV states "one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate or subtly massage the reader into believing) that any particular view at all is correct." This template clearly violates this element of the NPOV policy. - Amgine / ^talk 04:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete This one I can agree should probably go. I'll ignore any POV issues and say that it is singling out one country in specific. If we keep it wouldn't we have to start having infoboxes for China, Saudi-Arabia, etc, etc? Brianmc 08:28, 30 October 2005 Note, vote edited for clarification, comment still stands. Brianmc 00:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)(UTC)

• Keep -This info box has been here since June and has been quite useful. The assumption above that its purpose is to imply something is absurd nonsense as one can not apply motive to a Template. Furthermore, the nominator for deletion relies upon NPOV which states;

"We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. That may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties."

In addition, this info-box clearly shows it is in reference to U.S. human rights issues, not those of all the world's countries. If the nominator wishes an info box to cover all the countries in the world he may construct one; but such an info box would be too big,imo. The solution is not to delete this box based on articles about the U.S.'s human rights record but to construct similar info-boxes about other countries or regions; e.g. "Human Rights Iran" which I again invite the nominator to initiate. Construct, don't destroy. Neutralizer 13:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Deprifry|+T+ 13:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Amgine's comments. Category as well. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 01:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - The template could also be used for something like "America passes new law requiring..." or other positive lights. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - For the same reasons as given for the Australian Immigration one. - Borofkin 07:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Unnecessary and POV --Cspurrier 12:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP. For more or less the same reasons as Neutralizer. And we have an human rights box for everyone too, and a couple other countries. see WN:IB. If it does have to go It should just stop being used and not deleted because it would change old (archived) articles, and old articles should represent the policy's of the time and not of now. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Given the fact that we have a human rights info box for Australia and a more general human rights category I see no reason why this infobox should be considered POV. Perhaps there should be more attempts by the community to highlight positive human rights stories based in the US if this is considered biased. --Wolfrider 00:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

October 19, 2005

News briefs:October 15, 2005

Wrong place for scripts.. -- Flying Canuck 20:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

No delete, removed DR. Issue has been resolved, user forgot Category. --Mrmiscellanious 20:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

October 11, 2005

Science of Champagne Bubbles Explained

Delete and redirect with Science of champagne bubbles explained Bawolff 22:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Done. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

August 16

60th anniversary of the end of the war in Asia and Pacific commemorated

Article is entirely about a past, no-longer current event--Article not newsworthy--Grossly biased US/UK Pov that the war crimes against Japan are something to celebrate.

• Delete; Pure western opinion piece.POV drips from every sentence and link. Pride in the victory and no mention of the victims. Not a current event; a 60th. anniversary of what? Firebombing and atomic bombing women and children? --67.71.122.213
• Keep Article is about current commemorations of the end of the war in the pacific; facts in article propery sourced to cited articles. Above user is trolling. --Chiacomo (talk) 04:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

COMMENTthe above personal attack "Above user is trolling"note wikipedia definition"In the context of the Internet, a troll is a person who posts inflammatory messages intended to cause a disruption in discourse."..that personal attack is not appropriate, especially here, and is a slanderous lie. 64.229.30.142 12:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment As creator of article, I won't vote. All I'll say is this: the commemorations are not "celebrating" "war crimes". The commemorations are literally to mark the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II and not the many questionable acts committed by all sides during the war. Take care SoLando 04:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Valid topic. -- Davodd | Talk 06:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Two major commemoration celemonies attended by royals in different countries for a same historical period - contenporary enough, ne. --Aphaia 07:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Its news. Plus, the article could include all info which anyone wants included, but the editor(s) with an anti-US POV refuse to fit their info into context, or even cite sources. Nyarlathotep 07:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, like mentioned it's news and an event commemorated in many parts of the world, with the current title change it's a perfectly fine new article. 130.89.11.31 07:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A full discussion of the decision to drop the bombs would require us to include the Japanese "sneak attack" on Pearl Harbor, Japanese atrocities against prisoners of war and civilians in nations they occupied (such as the Rape of Nanking, Manchuria), Japan's refusal to surrender despite military defeat of their naval and air forces, and the probability that millions of Japanese and hundreds of thousands of Allied soldiers would have died in a land invasion. While this discussion is worthwhile, I'm not sure we should go into these details in the news article. Also note that many other news orgs reported this story. StuRat 09:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for the reasons above. And take off the tag now, enough votes for it? ClareWhite 12:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

PlusNet Kick 2 Users for Bad Feedback

Rant of dubious newsworth. -- Davodd | Talk 16:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep, providing someone finishes it off (unlikely I admit). However this is now most definitely news: The Register Dan100 (Talk) 20:12, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, providing it is cleaned up. StuRat 22:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep, it's valid consumer rights news. Any of us could be next. Milomedes 08:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep, for above reasons. Nyarlathotep 21:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Mozambique

never made it to this page --Azertus 11:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

 ??? Why do you feel Mozambique doesn't deserve a portal? -- user:zanimum

Please do not list portals here. They are continually developed, and there is no reason to delete them. --- NGerda 17:59, August 29, 2005 (UTC)