Wikinews:Deletion requests/Archives/Passed Archive 6

May 15

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

Template:Stub/Seealso

Don't need a template for a see also section. —FellowWikiNewsie 01:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. with all the stub templates that are useless to us gone, this will be too. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• I suggest that you both familiarize yourself with the template sub-page documentation pattern. That is what this is. It's a perfectly normal thing, and a good thing for high-use templates. Keep. Uncle G 04:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with that policy about adding the purpose of the templates (that's one of the reasons why I nominated the templates for deletion) but I must say, we don't need a template for a "see also" section; it's very easy to click edit and simply type in ==See also==. btw, our "see also" sections are called "Related news" or "Related stories". —FellowWikiNewsie 19:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what he's saying: it's not a template: it's a template documentation subpage of Template:Stub, the subpage is called "/Seealso". Keep.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

not really needed as the template isn't protected itself. neutral Bawolff ?? 22:30, 17 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 11

No consensus was reached on this deletion request. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

Pages listed at User:Zachary/Briefs

These were the pages used with the above template; as they are now directly on the brief pages, they could probably be deleted. —Zachary ^talk 14:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment We should keep the articles by moving them to the day's appropriate briefs and only delete the ones with a link to a full article. Or if some articles are one-liners we can delete them. —FellowWikiNewsie 01:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have already added these briefs to their respective News Briefs pages. You can see this by following this link. —Zachary ^talk 12:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• These pages should all be kept, in order to preserve the attribution in the editing history of the content that Zachary has copied. Uncle G 12:38, 14 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 9

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

Mexican candidate confident of winning OAS leadership race

• Delete Only one source listed, which is "not found". DragonFire1024 21:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - This article has been published for a long time and should not be made to disappear. Although, it is single source, I trust the source was available when Cspurrier published it on August 12, 2005. Further, the source La Prensa, seems to be a legitimate newspaper. --SVTCobra 22:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, the article seems factually accurate about the Secretary General of the OAS, even if Insulza won despite Derbez's confidence. --SVTCobra 23:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep published articles cannot be deleted. they shld be corrected or retracted, if required. haven't we been here before? –Doldrums(talk) 10:20, 11 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 3

No consensus was reached on this deletion request. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

Image:Russia magazine 01.jpg

Used in the Russa! articles. Russia! is going to be driven of Wikinews! magazine. —FellowWikiNewsie 02:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep the image because it is unsed on a published article. But I'm getting tired of new articles, maybe we should speedy it in the future for recreation of deleted content. Unless something really new is added to the stories.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:04, 3 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 2

No consensus was reached on this deletion request. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

Miami Dolphins coach going to Alabama

• Delete-- At least they tried...almost 2 sentences. DragonFire1024 01:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - how did this get published never mind archived? --SVTCobra 01:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete —FellowWikiNewsie 02:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, or if possible, merge and redirect to the appropriate day's "Wikinews Shorts". —Zachary ^talk 02:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. long published. cannot delete. –Doldrums(talk) 17:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It was published long ago, it should stay that way --Cspurrier 15:08, 7 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.

No consensus was reached on this deletion request. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

Atlanta Falcons fire head coach

• Delete-- Another one sentencer.
• Comment - again how did this get published never mind archived? --SVTCobra 01:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete —FellowWikiNewsie 02:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, or if possible, merge and redirect to the appropriate day's "Wikinews Shorts". —Zachary ^talk 02:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. long published. cannot delete. –Doldrums(talk) 17:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It was published long ago, it should stay that way --Cspurrier 15:08, 7 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.

No consensus was reached on this deletion request. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

Georgia Aquarium beluga whale euthanized

• Delete-- WTF. This is ONE sentence long...seriously. DragonFire1024 01:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete-- *cannot think of snappy remark*  Thunderhead  ►  01:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I like Stevenfruitsmaak but does he need a crash course in archiving? --SVTCobra 01:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete —FellowWikiNewsie 02:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, or if possible, merge and redirect to the appropriate day's "Wikinews Shorts". —Zachary ^talk 02:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. long published. cannot delete. –Doldrums(talk) 17:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It was published long ago, it should stay that way --Cspurrier 15:08, 7 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.

No consensus was reached on this deletion request. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

Russia! magazine, an English-language publication about Russia, is released in the US

• Delete - How could we keep leting this one pass??? DragonFire1024 00:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Agree,  Thunderhead  ►  00:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Isn't there a general policy of not making long-standing published articles disappear? --SVTCobra 01:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This is spam...constantly recreated article. DragonFire1024 01:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I agree totally. Special:Contributions/Russianinfocenter is basically a list of them. Nonetheless, I remember in the deletion request debates for subsequent articles (spam) on this magazine, this particular article was cited as a reason for deleting the others. --SVTCobra 01:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete —FellowWikiNewsie 02:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep already published article; not just a short one-liner like the DRs above. I see no harm in keeping it, unless it has some other issue with it, like POV problems. —Zachary ^talk 02:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe this article is archived 6 other times of the course of a year. DragonFire1024 03:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. long published. cannot delete. –Doldrums(talk) 17:45, 4 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.

April 20

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

Airline checks Dell and Apple computers for hazard

Found user has committed plagiarism on two other articles. This cites a source on his blog which is a wikinews video trailer, claims original reporting.

• Delete --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the credibility of this user has been so undermined that this OR cannot be trusted. --SVTCobra 23:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)See below, I'll defer to Craig as to what is best in this situation and abstain. --SVTCobra 23:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but place a warning on it. Published news should not disappear. --Cspurrier 23:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The source listed is the home page of his personal blog, which has no story about this. There are no other sources clarifing that the event described in the article did actually happen. This could be a hoax and I feel Wikinews should delete such articles, even if they are published. —FellowWikiNewsie 23:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Arguing for the defense, I'd say that the editor did tag OR and leave (although minimal) notes as per WN:OR about a phone conversation on the subject. That said, I don't trust this editor. What astounds me is that for all the edits (and archiving) of this article, no one seems to have clicked on the listed source. --SVTCobra 00:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That is disturbing. <bawolff goes to read sources of articles> Bawolff ☺☻ 02:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

At least it wasn't entirely made up [1] but just old. --SVTCobra 12:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Which the article admits: "The company said in an interview that the practice has been occurring for a number of months...".--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep published articles shld not be "disappeared". unsubstantiated information shld be fixed using a correction. –Doldrums(talk) 06:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just gone through the history on this, speedy was put on it several times citing no valid source. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 06:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

hmmm... i reverted the speedy couple of times, seeing (but not checking) the listed source, the OR claim and the history of the tagger. –Doldrums(talk) 08:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - The information is not incorrect or misleading, the ling was to my blog because, I am the athur and am using mainly origional research. Somewhere on the qantas website (QANTAS.com.au) there is a section where this is xplained. Ill have a look and see if the article is still there —Symode09 08:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and remove the linkspam to the writers blog.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Symode09, I would like to calmly ask you to add sources to all your stories as per Wikinews policy. I would also like to ask you to be creative and write your own articles. It's fun and you will enjoy it. That's what this website is all about; writing your own stories, talking to other editors, and having fun doing it. —FellowWikiNewsie 19:32, 20 April 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.

April 4

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

Snow falls in New Mexico

Not newsworthy - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 08:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - why would you want to all of a sudden delete a published story from 3 months ago?--SVTCobra 16:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - how come they want to delete this article? the news itself was pretty amazing, I mean snow in New Mexico! haha! (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 18:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - definately news, and pointless to delete now. —Dark_Squall 02:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep —FellowWikiNewsie 17:45, 7 April 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 Keep. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request.

Series of earthquakes hit Taiwan, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Indonesia

Not newsworthy, contains no information other than dates or times - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 08:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - again this article has been published for 3 months. It should have been archived. --SVTCobra 16:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - how come they want to delete this article? (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 18:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - as per SVT Cobra —Dark_Squall 02:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep —FellowWikiNewsie 17:45, 7 April 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.

March 28

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

Wikinews:Deletion log

Old menthoid of reporing deletions. —FellowWikiNewsie (W) (sign here!) 22:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

weak keepIntreasting for historical reasons. (okay not that intreasting, but not hurting anyone). Propose putting template:historical on it, with warning to use special:log/delete. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I guess this is older than the archives but still . . . I don't imagine any of it can be undeleted anyway. You'd have to be a real wiki-geek to want to keep this. --SVTCobra 00:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

if concensus wants to keep, can it be moved to some other place? --SVTCobra 00:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well yes, but I don't see any possible better place. I realize its does not contain any useful, or even semi useful info. Its just intreasting glimspe into the past that is not hurting anything. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Documents deletions not covered in Special:Log/Delete --+Deprifry+ 00:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Not hurting anybody.  Thunderhead  ►  19:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Historical; these deletions are not in the deletion logs, and could be the only record of such deletions (aside from the deleted pages themselves). Zachary ^talk 15:37, 3 April 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.

March 22

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

Template:Single source

It's being mis-applied - being added to breaking stories despite them explicitly being an exception - and is encouraging laziness in editors. Instead of slapping on a tag, find and add more sources. This template is not mandated by an policy and serves no useful purpose. Dan100 (Talk) 14:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Dispute deletion - The template does serve a useful purpose, I admit it is being misued and I have only to say that people should be learning to use things better before applying them. However, I dispute the deletion because there are occasions where sometimes only one source can be found for a story, and it takes more rummaging on the net to find others. Independant verification is necessary and if people need other sources, they will hunt them down. Thor Malmjursson 15:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose —FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 17:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: If misuse is your point, then we should change our behaviour, not put it up for deletion.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. This tag serves a valid purpose. If you look at the "no rewrite" clause on many sources such as AP you'd see the point of this. Sure, we have exceptions for breaking news - but the whole point in cases like that is you have a second source within less than an hour, and you include content from it that makes your story not unique.

The suggestion to simply find a second source doesn't wash. You need to find a second source and incorporate details from it. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. The tag is a very useful tool. It helps to save people from copyright infringement. It also forces the use of multiple sources, making a story more unique. The whole scope needs to be taken in, not just one misuse.—Dark Squall 03:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Brian. In my book, use of a single source during breaking news is not justified for long, if more sources are available. –Doldrums(talk) 04:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose It helps to make sure there is nothing copyvio too. DragonFire1024 04:48, 24 March 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.

February 14

Image:Romney Announcement.jpg

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

★MESSEDROCKER★ 05:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio, see User_talk:Elatanatari#more_images. —FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 23:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note if it was an AP photo it should be speedy. However its been replaced with a new photo which seems publicity. (I speedied the old version (admin link)). Bawolff ☺☻ 23:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

comment But Elatanatari put "AP photo" in this edit. —FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 03:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That was before the new version was uploaded, but perhaps we should ask for clarification. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sai Baba upsets Telangana activists

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

★MESSEDROCKER★ 05:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

dated Jan 26, this article was written and published on Feb 14. reports events prior to pub date. old news, hence notnews. — Doldrums(talk) 05:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to ask to be excused for not knowing Wikinews policy on this matter as I did not think that "reasonably recent" were forbidden on Wikinews. I pre-dated the article as Jan 26 because of the story's events, but a source reference is dated February 18th so I hope that qualifies as "recent". I put a lot of work into the article anyhow so I hope it can be salvaged in some way. IronFist 23:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. It was an accident on part of the user, and its only a month late, not a year late. I say publish. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

published accordingly.  — Doldrums(talk) 06:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

January 26

Church group backs 'extremist' mosque

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

• Abandoned DragonFire1024 03:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Abandoned stuff is no longer required to be listed at dr. just tag {{abandoned}} Bawolff ☺☻ 22:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Has been worked over, sources added, and should probably get a date bump. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

January 9

Wikinews:Categorical index

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★ 14:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems kinda pointless to me. Most of these categories are encyclopedic which we don't have nor want. We have Wikinews:Browse (and its predecessor Wikinews:SectionMenu). I think we don't need it and it should redirect to Wikinews:Browse. Bawolff :-)(-: 23:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• I request maintain it and I erase the delete message . It is a common Wikimedia category tree. We can use Wikinews:Categorical index for category order (sometimes one cannot include the news in a concrete existing category) and Wikinews:Browse for existing categories. --Mac 07:04, 10 January 2007
• we need a categorical index, but this isn't doing the job well (if at all). — Doldrums(talk) 13:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Since there is a need for a categorical index, I say keep and work on it Mac!--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

January 6

Brazilian news agency using free software for multimedia broadcasting

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is keep because the two copies isn't harming anyone and it's far too late anyway. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

★MESSEDROCKER★ 21:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate of Radiobras Brazilian news agency moved to Free Software‎. Was created by the same user twice. —FellowWikiNews (W) 14:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

But there different, not exact copies...--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:48, 9 January 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.

January 15

Bravitude climbing fast on Google

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is keep. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I've made various efforts to get the contributor to focus on a news event and build the story of the new French word around that. This hasn't happened, instead we have something between an encyclopedia entry and an almanac entry. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

almanac entry ;-))) Sorry not to be able to formulate properly in your native language all the stuff you had already noticed in my sources. Imho, it is not encyclopeodic and the French wikipedia has already voted an analog deletion... In my own native language, the word almanac applies on a yearly and not on a weekly basis... I do feel sure that wikinews is the only place to publish the full reserch work I've already done. If nobody help me to ment my faultive English, I'll will of course realise that we were losing time (mine ten times more that yours) and I'll never bother the wikinews community again about my discoveries. I swear you : such a fast climb never happened before on an w:neologism French word. 82.224.88.52 21:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Concentrate on the news event that has sources, namely the Royale incident and then build your research around that. Your missing the item that made news because you think your research is more interesting. It becomes interesting when you have a story to build it around, and that's what (the lack of) makes the article {{notnews}}. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Royale incident ;-))) Don't worry any more about this because I've lost enough time and I'll not edit it any more ; if someone else is reading, I really don't mind in which direction he'll modify it ; I just need to say that imho we are not here to build an encyclopedia but news and the Royale incident is already encyclopedic 82.224.88.52 22:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to turn the article around, please comment here so we can suspend the deletion process.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Seem to have hit the mark, I'm happy to have the DR withdrawn and the article published. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:24, 16 January 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.

December 16

Wikinews:Story preparation/Former U.S. President George Bush dies

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★ 01:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

A little bit too much fishing, eh? We don't want to clog up the Preparing category with stuff like this, unless there's a good chance of it actually occuring soon (illness etc.) Daniel.Bryant 11:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• delete pointless article preparation - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 11:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. We need more of these. --+Deprifry+ 14:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• delete useless, i don't like this Story preparation stuff. No, i understand 2 or 4 week before an event (Oscar price, ...) or an interview or some timed event but here (and in other examples) it's pure science-fiction. Jacques Divol
• Delete Sorry, but I really have to agree with Jacques. —FellowWikiNews (W) 22:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep My fellow frog-eater Jacques is our best deletionnist :( on our French wikinews ; I don't know why he denies me the right to http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews%3AStory_preparation%2FFormer_U.S._President_Gerald_Ford_dies&diff=355209&oldid=349006 keep updating senior U.S. Presidents ? ? ? Everybody will die some day Jacques ; C'est la vie! not science-fiction I tell you. Most newsrooms have this kind of text ready and we are several doing this job here on wikinews... Why spoil our work ? ? ? 82.224.88.52 22:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: this has no sense, imho (but it could have some in big newspapers, where they must be ready). History of Wikipedias has shown that contributors don't need to have "prepared obituaries" (death of John Paul II) ou "prepared curriculum vitae" (election of Benedict XVI). There are immediatly users to bring informations, sometimes quicker than news agencies, and a full "piranha effect" (does this term exist in English?). Hégésippe | ±Θ± 02:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep He isn't a young person and having some sort of prepared article seems reasonable. Note that in more traditional media they keep these sorts of stories ready to go at momemnts notice. While Hégésippe about the piranha effect it isn't clear to me what we lose by keeping this around (unless one thinks that the effort it will take to update it from time to time will be more work than the amount saved by keeping it around. I don't know either way). JoshuaZ 04:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

  i understand (more or less) for a regular newspaper. The big difference here is : everyone access theses prepared article on Wikinews, i don't think that serious journalist shows his/her prepared articles. At best it lacks of gentleness and sensibility for these persons and their familly. If you want prepared article keep then on your own computer not on Wikinews where it's accessible to everyone ! Last thing, i deny nothing the Ford's article is availableJacques Divol 08:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

November 29

Category:War

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★ 12:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Says "News about conflicts between organized militaries of one or more countries.", and it isn't. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Then let's remove the darn notice and the whole category will be fine again. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 12:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree to remove the notice. Category ok. Jacques Divol

Agree with the two above users. —FellowWikiNews (W) 14:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the notice. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 20:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Fair enough, would someone with a little more energy than me figure out how we can make this a consistent category where the act of including an article isn't POV? For example, should everything that is "War on Drugs" go in this category, what about other wars on common nouns? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"War on Drugs" is not war, this kind of expression is more, how to say, a way to advertise, an expression made by public relation for journalists to use. Very impressive as lead article's title, very good for ballot :) Jacques Divol 22:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Nobody has actually voted on this, so I'll just throw in a gratuitous please delete. I don't think I've come across any article I could easily tag with this category and I believe all in it are inappropriately listed. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• delete Category:Politics and conflicts seems more appropriate to me - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 11:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

November 11

Image:Stanjan.png

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is there are sources now so it can be kept. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

★MESSEDROCKER★ 03:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this qualifies as fair use on Wikinews.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That could potentially be fair use, depending on how the creator used it (I think). however it has no source, so it may be deleted for that. Bawolff ☺☻ 17:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Plus, images like that should be on Commons, right? Thunderhead(talk)^{(Check out my RFA test}) 17:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No. Images that are fair use stay far away from commons (or they end up here). Only "free" images are allowed at commons. Bawolff ☺☻ 17:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay semi-found source: http://www.berenstainbears.com/graphics/stanjansmall.jpg / http://www.berenstainbears.com/aboutbears.html / http://www.berenstainbears.com/graphics/stanjan.jpg http://www.berenstainbears.com/graphics/stanjan.gif

To me they seem to be used to represent the author of the site , so I would think thats fair use. We could email them, but that may be a little insensitive to email to say, hey could I use this pict in the article about you dying? Bawolff ☺☻ 17:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

November 10

Category:Creationism

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★ 02:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedic category, pretty much a given with religion. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep a good news category for issues pertaining to the friction between science and religion. A good way to organized articles like Teaching Intelligent Design: Incumbent Dover PA school board fails reelection and Vatican issues defence of evolution, rejects fundamentalist creationism and so on. C56C 20:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment, so you want a category to collect all the articles that support your POV? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment, the subject matter would be better served with Category:Creationism than Category:Religion. It is more precise and deals with the religion and science deabtes, which is lacking if you use a strictly religious category. You shouldn't use personal attacks and assumptions to get this deleted. C56C 01:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No personal attack meant, but you seem to have it in for Kent Hovindt (sp?). If we start looking at the ID stuff you're going to have the big argument that these people don't want to be called Creationists. Past debate here has categorised the issue as a religious one. This is one of the cases, like terrorism, that has those you'd most want to apply the label to denying it is appropriate. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep- no difference to the people cats imo Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 20:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete obviously Jacques Divol 21:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete Belongs on Pedia Thunderhead(talk)^{(Check out my RFA test}) 17:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep per 1 and 2. --Skenmy^{(t•c•w•i)} 18:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't such article be taged with some category about evolution? You'd see plenty of scientific articles too. But its pretty obvious from the title which are which. Nyarlathotep 17:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Inventor prize 2006 goes to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales

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★ 02:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Not news: this is has not received media attention and is a too small initiative for our internation scope. After a little research, this seems like a personal initiative which has received more or less 0.00 media attention. Please comment.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

media attention is not a criterium, important news pass without attention until one day the news explode (Darfour, ...). there's many exemple if you receive UN news by mail like me. As French, Buffalo articles, at first don't interrest me, but the if something similar came in France, i could make the link,... Any article is important if someone take time to write it with sources. It's not Wikinews to pre-judge proeminence of a news (okay, more or less, but the less the better), it's the reader. We are not a newspaper, sorting information in order to have the more reader (buyer). I hope... otherwise it's POV. Jacques Divol 16:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

it has received media attention in german speaking media. ~tom 17:20, 10 November

I have expanded it a little based on translating the German article with Babelfish and looking up Inventor's Day. Please correct any inaccuracies I may have introduced. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

oppose deletionI don't see how this is not notable/news. I think we are unfairly subjecting it to notablity tests, simply because its connected to wikinmedia. if it wasn't I don't think this deletion request would be here. (Although I could be thinking worng) Bawolff ☺☻ 07:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:New York, New York

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★ 02:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia New York, New York is a shopping centre in Taipei and also "what the...?" --Nzgabriel | Talk 06:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that was the name of New york city (in City, Secondary political division form that we ussually use). Bawolff ☺☻ 06:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. --Nzgabriel | Talk 09:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we should use New York as the state, and New York City as the city, but not this way.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not - we have category:toronto, Ontario, Category:Montreal, Quebec, we should be consistant. If we had a Quebec category, I would name it Category:Quebec, Quebec (As an alt we could move any with two of the same, to have the city end in city e.g. category:New York City, New York Bawolff ☺☻ 21:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Move to Category:New York City, New York or Category:New York City. FellowWikiNews (W) 18:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

October 20

Image:TopLogoGoalkeeper freetouse pleasebelieveme i am not lying.png

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

—this is messedrocker (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware that this isn't an article but an image. This has been lying around without sources. Unless sources and an explanation of why this can be used are provided, this should be deleted. This should allow the uploader time to explain himself, which is only fare IMHO.-- Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It is currently being used (by CSS. see Portal:Football). It looks like it has a source to me. This is the proper place for image deletions as well. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh? I don't think so, it just says: " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Soccer_goalkeeper.jpg original image faded into this page. " --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression, that it was based on the linked image. Bawolff ☺☻ 19:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes but the original was probably replaced, and now the image lacks a source.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

33 of 44 questioned Koreans not impressed by North Korean nuclear weapons test

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is keep. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.  — Doldrums(talk) 15:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't see how this is relevant. All the reader can learn from this article is what Korean speakers on a particular plane believed on a topic. In fact, readers who aren't paying very close attention may believe the poll is representative of the Korean population. An informal poll with a small sample size taken on an airplane isn't news. 65.185.222.223 04:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC) AC2012

article very clearly states it is not representative. in the first 4 words. note that opinions of non-notable individuals are often presented in news articles.  — Doldrums(talk) 05:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

see also w:Vox populi. — Doldrums(talk) 05:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem isn't that the poll presents itself as representative, but rather that someone who doesn't understand exactly how polls work might not understand the implications of the poll being unrepresentative. This poll tells us nothing about what the people of Korea think, it only tells us what Korean-speakers onboard a particular airplane think. I'd doubt the relevance of that statistic in the first place, and treating it as a news story invites misiniterpretation by the reader. 65.185.222.223 01:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been editing this poll report several times because it has an international interest and I still wonder why my {publish} flags were removed each time while we keep so many local posts (sample below) and where I'm even forbidden to correct the spelling errors which are kept with a (sic) behind them. 82.224.88.52 07:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: sure there are limitation but the article clearly explains them.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: as per discussion above.  — Doldrums(talk) 13:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. -- IlyaHaykinson 14:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

August 31

Into the Stratosphere Without an Engine

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

—this is messedrocker (talk) 10:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Press release. —this is messedrocker (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• ReWrite Seems lke it could be interesting news...I hope it gets rewritten. A request for an interview is likely to be placed for this article Keep Jason Safoutin 20:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep FellowWikiNews (W) 20:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

August 27

Tottenham comfortably beat Sheffield United 2-0

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

—this is messedrocker (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Abandoned. —this is messedrocker (talk) 08:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

keep published. Doldrums 10:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

August 21

David Witt, father-in-law of Floyd Landis, commits suicide

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

—this is messedrocker (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

abandoned, minimal. Doldrums 04:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, for reasons Doldrums suggested. Tomos 18:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It might be obvious, but User:SVTCobra since expanded the article and it does not need deletion anymore. Tomos 17:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

August 9

Dogs smell lung and breast cancer

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

—this is messedrocker (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Not news -- the latest development in the story is in January. —this is messedrocker (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to note that the latest development was the actual publication, which was in March.--Stevenfruitsmaak 12:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep. - sort of an 'evergreen' news item. -Edbrown05 02:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

move to Prepared stories. another study will get reported someday and we can use this for background. some effort has gone into this story. wouldn't like to see it wasted. Doldrums 04:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep. Human interest story that isn't so time-critical. --+Deprifry+ 09:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep: per my arguments at the talk page; there is no clear policy that would be the basis for deletion; news is only defined as "current events", and current is not further defined, I think this is still of interest. In terms of research, a 5-month-old paper is still very new. If consensus is deletion then I strongly suggest moving to story preparation.--Stevenfruitsmaak 11:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep as per Edbrown05 --R2b2 21:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

July 26

Category:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

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

—this is messedr͏ocker (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

We should concentrate on more general categories, before even thinking about something like this. Also has a very high potential for POV Encyclopaedic category. In the past we have not allowed cats to be made to cover one topic, iirc the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy cat was deleted as the community did not want separate cats for every different world events. And we couldn’t have a cat Terrorism, or even use the word in articles, but we can have articles in this cat with pov titles such as: Israel attack Red Cross ambulances on rescue mission; Seven Canadians killed by Israeli airstrike; Israel masses troops, tanks along Lebanon border; Israeli vessels enter Lebanese waters to 'enforce blockade and of course Lebanon faces humanitarian crisis and 20 fleeing Lebanese villagers killed by Israeli missile Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 05:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - an in depth page and an infobox couln't hurt though —this is messedr͏ocker (talk) 05:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I especially agree about the project page and infobox. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 15:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This is not an encyclopedia but news outlet. Reasons provided above apply to the WIki but do not agree to apply them in Wikinews.--Tequendamia 15:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't think an 'Infobox' should be made into a 'Category'. -Edbrown05 17:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I do not see a convincing argument for the deletion of this category. It is a requirement to operate the related infobox in a simple manner and if there should be any argument it should be over the placement of this category on a story. I have yet to see one dispute on that topic so I assume most readers and contributors believe it is a legitimate category. The argument that we have articles that can, whilst meeting project guidelines, make this infobox POV does not seem reasonable to me. Yes, there is some conflict within the wiki over what should be reported from the conflict, but nobody has disputed use of this category/infobox on any article, we may disagree on what the story should be, but we are agreed upon the events which make up the story. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this is a major news catagory ,at the moment, when the war dies down I belive it can be deleted. MyName 18:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - FellowWikiNews (W) 18:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I think major conflicts like this one should have their own category; I don't understand (and can not comment on) all of the wiki-lore/customs/norms and mores, but to me it just seems to make sense to have this as a category/infobox. Neutralizer 19:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The prob I have is this cat, as it is a wiki precedent not to have cats for “one topic” news events Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 00:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Its usefull now when many articles is about subject. If it make infobox work, definitly keep. Otherwise we can delete it when it become inactual. which i hope will be soon. international 00:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - As this is one of the major news events in 2006, I can't see why it doesn't deserve its own category. --Jambalaya 16:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete in the past wikinews has not let this happen, why change now? Joann 00:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

July 10

Parlez-vous français? Qapla’! More Grade 11 boys proficient in Klingon than French: local survey

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

—this is messedr͏ocker (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous user argues the merit of the study on the article's talk page and put the deletion request template on the article. While I am filing the deletion request here, my vote is:

• No opinion. —this is messedr͏̈ocker (talk) 04:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - although I'm not sure about which policy, does seem to be a bit of an engineered story (I'm sure you could write similar kinds of stories using all sorts of stats). If it survives, I think it at least needs a headline change as the survey was only representative of one school's Grade 11... R2b2 04:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

- The problem silvestr is that a survey is supposed to be scientific, not poetic. This survey has data doctored to support a claim, and in addition the data is not siginificant even within the test group (ie, you cannot make that claim even in the group tested).65.89.12.2 21:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

- The data was doctored in that you only used a small subset of your data to report on, ignoring your other data. In any measured set of data you are going to have small flukes that are quite likely to have something in common just by chance. For an explination as to why your data isn't significant please read the discussion page for the article, (also, when looking at statistical significance you also have to keep in mind what you are testing on ie. students will lie which won't be seen in a statistical test (to solve that problem students could have been asked to prove their proficiency)).65.89.12.2 15:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - like in haiku, a detail can perfectly describe whole Universe. IMHO even no major headline change is needed - note the ": local survey" in it, which however could go first. Silvestr, 15:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

 ??? I'm not sure what you're trying to say with your first sentence. R2b2 20:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - 65.89.12.2, the data was not doctored, I reported it exactly as it came in. While I would acknowledge that the results may be inaccurate, I'd like someone to at least calculate the confidence margin before it's dismissed as an insignificant result. And that, unfortunately, is a bit beyond my knowledge of statistics (which is somewhere around first- or second-year university level). Seahen 23:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

June 20

Template:Non-com

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

—THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 16:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This deletion request will close June 27.

We should not be allowing non-commercial use only images. It adds little to Wikinews, but hurts our status as a free content site significantly. It also probably violates foundation policy. --Cspurrier 15:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-Commercial use only makes baby Jesus cry. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 15:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• neutral Well then you're going to have to delete some other templates too. (Like specific permission to use on wikinews). However if theres a free alternative we should always use that version (like policy says). I think however we should have template:gol image images, so if we delete this its a slipery slope. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice. - Borofkin 05:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per Messedrocker. --Deprifry|+T+ 11:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - whether or not to allow non-commercial only images should be a policy decision not a RfD decision. It would be better to keep the template for now and then to discuss this issue seperately (personally I think we should retain the policy of preferring images with freer licences, but allow non-commercial only images if no others are available). Frankie Roberto 13:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I guess. I don't necessarily mind seeing policy decissions made in RfD, but I'm not seeing any policy arguments here, although I'm sure Messedrocker, Borofkin, and Cspurrier could make the argument quite well if they wanted. btw, I'm actually neutral on such issues. Nyarlathotep 13:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The debate over Non-Commercial has been had on many projects many times, especially Wikipedia. Here are a few links, that explain it much better then I could. Wikipedia Signpost Jimmy Wales announcing the ban on their use An nice essay on Non-Commercial images--Cspurrier 15:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand, and agree with, the arguments, especially for Wikipedia, but think it is more acceptable for Wikinews to use non-commercial only images, even if it's just for a few hours before other photos are found. The Wikipedia policy does not seem to have been translated to Wikinews:Image_use_policy, which is where any policy discussion should take place (as merely deleting the template doesn't affect the policy). Frankie Roberto 15:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If its for a few hours, we have templates for that. Bawolff ☺☻ 19:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Karen 05:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

4 June

Vietnam Passes New Intellectual Property (IP) Law

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is speedy keep and made into a redirect per Deletion Request Edict. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

—THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 13:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Dupe, I don't think covered under speedy, but if the other is kept the discussion should be merged. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

May 30

Judge orders U.S. Department of Justice officials to testify

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

—THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 10:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Abandoned, disputed. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 07:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep I have read the source article and can comprehend neither the need for a tag in this article's early development nor the tagger's talk page assertion the source was not about the Ambassador when it clearly was with even the title of the source article being "The case of the missing ambassador".70.48.206.17 18:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It is also not the best thing for the tagger to put the article up for "abandoned" as I see the tagger blocked the initual writer of the article for a week on the same day the article was created. 70.48.206.17 19:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep This is the least valid DR I've ever witnessed on wikinews; what's the trip? 70.48.204.14 04:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment What are the objections? Strange burial of this story as it seems rather benign albeit interesting to the people of USA and Austalia perhaps. 70.48.204.14 04:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NPOV mean balanced reporting. Focusing on one person and only one person out of hundreds is not NPOV. Jason Safoutin 07:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think the article has potential and the Ambassador is one of only 6 people on trial so it clearly relates to him personally. Enigma 05:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. One source is an opinion piece, the other is from 2002. --Deprifry|+T+ 06:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Former chaplain at Guantanamo tells about abuse and underage prisoners

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

—THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 10:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Article covers contents of a speech on May 5th, also given on May 24th. Not news according to WN:CG policy. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 07:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Consensus reached to publish, specific interpretation of policy violation not described adequately to other contributors. Does not meet criteria listed in Wikinews:What_Wikinews_is_not Karen 08:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I have no problem with reporting on a speech as an event, as long as the person giving the speech is notable or authorative in some way regarding the contents of the speech. This fellow is notable because he used to work at Guatanamo, and the contents of the speech relate to his experiences there. - Borofkin 08:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

May I ask how many times should a speech be covered? In how many places it is given? And how long since it is original? For example, I have the opportunity to cover an Al Gore speech this week in Vancouver, but it is his "stump-of-the-month" speech from May so I don't plan on it. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 17:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm not really sure, to be honest. If lots of people were present to listen to the speech, I think it makes it notable even if it mostly a repeat of a previous speech. In this case the event is the speech itself. If the speech is new, or the content notable in some way, then the event is the revelation of new and notable information. - Borofkin 06:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per borofkin, speech by a notable person is a news event. Doldrums 08:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - And speedy publish. Sorry to tell this Amgine but I think you missuse deletiontag here and its disruption, even if its minor. You should respect the consencus on talk or edit it constructivly. international 12:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

May 27

Wikinews:Citing Wikipedia policy

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

WN:NOT an encyclopedia, the relevant concept of using established practice is already a part of Wikinews policy. Instruction creep. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 15:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - What does Wikinews's status of not being an encyclopedia have to do with this? As much as I understand that Wikinews and Wikipedia have the same fundamental goals, that doesn't mean we're the same community as Wikipedia. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 17:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete just because it is pedia's policy does not mean it should have to be ours. --Cspurrier 17:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That's not the point! The page is supposed to outline when it is appropriate and when it's not appropriate. It doesn't say that we should cite them at any given opportunity. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 17:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Then it is Instruction creep --Cspurrier 17:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
      • If you say so. I just wanted to provide a guide of when it's appropriate to source non-Wikinews policy. I vote userfy. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 17:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but rename to Policy on citing Wikipedia Policy. I think it could be a useful thing to point new folks to in the future, especially to ex-Wikipedians. -- IlyaHaykinson 18:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Jason Safoutin 00:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete In my opinion Wikipedia policy should only be cited in an attempt to explain something that is established practice on Wikinews. Attempting to write a policy to govern this process will unecessarily complicate things. - Borofkin 00:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'm in broad agreement, and requesting for deletion seems like the wrong way to go about arguing against a proposed policy. Frankie Roberto 17:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Good advice for a still slightly startup project, and I don't really believe in instruction creep anyway. Flipbaywood 23:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

May 26

Atheist sues for proof of the existence of Jesus

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

—THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 17:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This story is being written about 4 months after the first report on USA Today. It has obviously lost significance and can't be considered news. PVJ (Talk) 17:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Just read about this in the paper and on TV. It can definately be expanded and rewriten to an updated sense. Jason Safoutin 01:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

May 23

Nasa-Isro accord

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

minimal - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 23:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep Important in light of the recent strengthening of Ind-U.S ties. I'll expand as I find information. Meanwhile I'm changing the title to make it easier to understand. PVJ 08:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep to give PVJ59 a chance to expand it. Aloha, KeithH (talk) 08:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

May 21

Iran Parliament passes bill requiring Jews & Catholics to wear special badges

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

—THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 11:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The credibility of the sources is questionable. Also no well-known news-source seems to have published this story. The inclusion of this article (which implies Iran as some sort of Neo-Nazi fascist regime) will only serve to highlight the (percieved) Anglo-American bias that exists on Wikinews. PVJ 16:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep temporarily, but don't publish until its got some confirmation. Speedy delete if its verified as a hoax. 134.214.103.174 16:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • don't mind either way - If someone (or some people) are willing to do the work, and i stress if, then IMHO the story could be rewritten to focus on the fact of the incredibly irresponsible and most likely deliberate spreading of the rumour which promotes the "Ahmadinejad=Hitler" meme, including the willingness of "respectable" (in the sense of often used as sources in wikinews...) newspapers to propagate the false meme despite its relatively easy verifiability and the danger of propagating a false rumour in a situation of already high diplomatic US-Iran and Iran-Israel tensions. Is w:Benador Associates deliberately trying to provoke a war? After all, that's what their clients want, and they presumably try to make their clients happy. Anyway, w:2006 Iranian sumptuary law already has dealt with the issue in quite some depth - i'm not sure if summarising that article as a wikinews article has much sense. On the other hand, doing original research can not be done in the wikipedia article, but can be done here if there's a template warning added about original research by a wikinews reporter... And to do a proper article (more on Benador Associates and its links with the US administration and the present state of w:United States-Iran relations) would require some internet research (google etc) at least - i'm not sure if this is the sort of OR which would be acceptable in wikinews - and also some "collecting and organizing material from primary/secondary sources" which some wikinewsies might feel counts as OR. Boud 00:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This is unlikely to be fixed up enough to be worth keeping. You'd run into difficulties trying to name the biases of the sources that originally ran the story in the same way that the opening paragraph currently does in trying to be neutral. This is more grist for an editorial mill, you don't have to source calling someone hawkish then. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Hold off a little. I agree with Brianmc, but let's wait a little and see if the story is true. Flipbaywood 20:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hod off I've seen this repeated in a newspaper recently (only it suggested that it was non-muslims who had to be badged rather than any specific religions). Will try to find an online source. Frankie Roberto 23:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

May 17

Prisoners and gangs hold mass rebellions in Brazil

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

—THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 14:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Abandoned, due the creation and merging with Wave of attacks strike policemen in Brazil - Sitenl 22:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as a redirect. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 00:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

May 15

UK Fails to deport 1023 foreign criminals

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

—THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 14:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Marked as +dr on May 1, 2006 but not listed here. Abandoned - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 08:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - it's a shame we didn't cover this in more depth as it was big news. For the sake of the archive, I've cleaned it up and reckon we can keep it, even though it's a fairly small article. Frankie Roberto 17:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Needs a date where anything cited in it is common knowledge, but I think this is another save/Keep from Frankie. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

ISO adopts Open Document Format

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

—THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 14:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Abandoned - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 08:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep - it wasn't quite abandoned as I thought it was worth waiting until the ISO officially make an announcement on the news (see talk page). Since this now appears to have happened press release - 8th May, I reckon we can still make a story of of this. (I didn't write the initial article) Frankie Roberto 17:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - just thinking, though...don't we have a 'prepare' tag for articles that cover events that have not yet occurred? Aloha, KeithH (talk) 05:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

May 13

Unnamed UN diplomats claim: Highly enriched uranium found in Iran

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

—THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK)

Article is speculative and depends on one unamed (claimed) UN diplomat. A sourcefarm trying to say something... We can start from scratsh when better fact is known. international 01:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep If we delete this then whats the point of keeping this: USA Today reports NSA obtained call logs from communications companies? Has anyone seen the NSA report?? Jason Safoutin 02:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I think deletion is not the greatest idea. If we're waiting for facts, how about we keep as prepared story or something. I don't see the harm of keeping (Not saying that we should publish it, but to delete at the moment is something I disagree with). Bawolff ☺☻ 03:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Listing for deletion when there are issues that can be solved out is never acceptable. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 03:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This so called "story" hitting the wires is nothing but pure USA war-mongering propaganda based on gossip and hearsay. It may be suitable for Fox News but not Wiki News. Neutralizer 03:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep this is childish, this article is fine, and should have been published by now, we have reported other news the same way before, bawolff's idea might be okay through. I would help work on it, but I'm ment to be studying :) Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 04:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep' Clearly news. Will one of the more left wing editors please rewrite it though; the wording is very POV at present. Nyarlathotep 12:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Update, I just saw Amgine's comment on the article. So I change my vote from speedy keep to just keep, and Ill abstain if Amgine votes delete. Ok; gota run, see ya Nyarlathotep 12:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

May 10

Britney Spears announces she is pregnant again

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

—THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 16:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

REASON -- Not newsworthy

Then delete the first article about her first pregnancy: Britney Spears announces she is pregnant and about her birth Singer Britney Spears gives birth to a healthy boy. Jason Safoutin 17:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It is news. Give me one reason why its not. You have yet to do so. Jason Safoutin 17:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, sure it is (newsworthy), stupid news maybe but still news --Cspurrier 17:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• It is news, maybe not extremely important but its not hurting anyone or anything to keep it listed. --Andrew Myers 17:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I would even hear an argument that not reporting this kind of thing was censorship WillJenkins 17:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I could second that. Jason Safoutin 17:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I have removed the DR tag from the story, but this DR should probaly remain open. --Cspurrier 18:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep not my kind of news, but clearly meets the WN:CG guidelines. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 18:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, although this is really material that should appear in a magazine with the title, "Oops she did it again." --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep no need to be snobby about this kind of thing, it clearly is news... Frankie Roberto 16:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

May 8

BJP leader Pramod Mahajan shot at in Mumbai

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

—THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 19:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Duplicate, abandoned - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 22:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I know I was the one who originally added the merge tag, but looking at it again, they are two different stories, of the shooting and of the death. This original story wasn't tagged publish or develop and was badly formatted, so didn't get picked up, but actually I think with a bit of cleaning up it's okay... Frankie Roberto 23:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This has been nicely fixed and doesn't show any indication that hindsight has been applied in doing so. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

May 3

Filmmaker releases trailer for open source feature film

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

—THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 19:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

(formerly New Filmmaker Solomon Rothman Releases Trailer Online for Free Full Length Feature Film and Open Source Movie, Titled 'Boy Who Never Slept')

It seems like a press release to me. Flipbaywood 00:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I put this story on because it is valid news; its on Google and Yahoo News, and there is a short story on it in the German newspaper De Bug, and myriad other sites, including the Creative Commons(both US and Canadian) weblogs, ccnmag.com, and was featured on The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School page. A press release is sourced, yes, but many other news stories, including those on this site, get their information from press releases. More people will be writing stories on it, as the film has yet to be released. Its something that people should know about, so if you don't like the way it sounds, or think it sounds too "press releasish" change the format or wording, but please don't delete it. It is newsworthy, and I don't believe there was an attempt, per WikiNews guidelines, to research or edit it before it was nominated for deletion. I do think the title is too long, and there are other changes I was going to make, then it landed here.

AuroraMae 02:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Its very press release-ish and not so neutral right now, so it has some way to go before publication is possible. I've no opinion on its intrinsic news worthyness. Nyarlathotep 14:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

keep - i've done some work on it and it can be made into a decent article. Frankie Roberto 23:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to the title changerAuroraMae 07:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC).