Jump to content

Wikinews:Deletion requests

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
(Redirected from Wikinews:DR)

Do not list a page here if it meets the speedy deletion criteria or the proposed deletion criteria.

Do not list a page here if it meets the speedy deletion criteria or the proposed deletion criteria.
2004  |  2005
2006  |  2007
2008  |  2009
2010  |  2011
2012  |  2013
2014  |  2015
2016  |  2017
2018  |  2019
2020  |  2021
2022  |  2023
2024  |  2025
2026


Deletion
Speedy
Proposed
Regular
Policy
Log

Oversight

Content requests
Articles
Interviews
Featured
Deletion

This page is where Wikinewsies discuss whether a page or file should be deleted or undeleted through consensus. See the Deletion Log or the Deletion Archives to see which pages have been deleted or kept.

DELETION
I Read and be familiar with the Deletion Criteria before listing a page here, or debating on a page here.
II Add {{Deletion request}} or {{dr}} to the image, category or article page.
III List the link below using the following template: 
== Date of request ==
=== [[:Page title]] ===
State reason for deletion request and sign with ~~~~.
==== Comments ====

==== Votes ====
IV The listing will remain open for at least seven days while the community discusses the page(s). The period of time starts at the submission of the deletion request on this page.
  • Please vote using {{keep}}, {{remove}}, {{neutral}}, or {{comment}} followed by your signature.
  • Note: Votes and comments from single-purpose accounts will be struck and disregarded.
Admins To close a Deletion Request
  • Check the DR has been open for at least SEVEN days.
  • Weigh the arguments for and against deletion.
  • Enclose the DR with:
  1. {{closed-dr-box|result|closing-admin (your username)}} above the page title; and
  2. {{closed-dr-footer}} below the last vote.
  • If the result was to KEEP:
  1. Remove the {{DR}} from the article.
  2. Add {{Multidel}} at top of the talk page with a Diff to the closed DR discussion.
  • If the result was to DELETE:
  1. Delete the article with [[WN:DR|Deletion request]] as the reason.
  2. If the deleted page was a category, image or template, remove those from the pages on which they appear.
UNDELETION
Note If you object to speedy deletion of a page, or wish to overturn a closer deletion request, please list it here. An admin may undelete the page(s) at their discretion for the duration of the vote, so that users may view the page they are voting on.
I List the link below using the following template: 
== Date of request ==
=== [[:Page title]] ===
State reason for undeletion request and sign with ~~~~.
==== Comments ====

==== Votes ====
II The listing will remain open for at least seven days while the community discusses the page(s). The period of time starts at the submission of the deletion request on this page.
  • Please vote using {{keep}} to restore the page, {{remove}} to keep it deleted, {{neutral}}, or {{comment}} followed by your signature.
  • Note: Votes and comments from single-purpose accounts will be struck and disregarded.
Admins To close an Undeletion Request
  • Check the UDR has been open for at least SEVEN days.
  • Weigh the arguments for and against undeletion.
  • Enclose the UDR with:
  1. {{closed-dr-box|result|closing-admin (your username)}} above the page title; and
  2. {{closed-dr-footer}} below the last vote.
  • If the result was FOR undeletion:
  1. Undelete the page.
  2. Remove the {{DR}} from the page.
  3. Add {{Multidel}} at top of the talk page with a Diff to the closed UDR discussion.

Deletion requests

February 1, 2026

Turkish military transport plane crashes near Georgia border, 20 dead

@New mayo, Metropolitan90, Wikiwide, Gryllida: notifying article contributors for awareness only.

I propose this article be retracted due to multiple failures to comply with WN:Plagiarism (proposed guideline), WN:CS (policy), WN:NPOV (policy), and WN:MOS (guideline). Taken together, these issues are sufficiently extensive that post-publication correction is not practical.

These problems were identified during the archival process. In light of the reviewer’s previously stated position regarding the scope of their reviews, this case raises concerns about whether the review performed met the expectations outlined in policy.

The following statement is was plagiarism. It is not detected by Earwig, which I believe will not scan Reuters due to their Robots.txt directive. The text can be found by a manual search. It could be fixed even post-archive if it was the only issue. This statement was removed and a note placed on the article.[1]

  • "57 years old and had entered the Turkish Air Force in 2010."

The following statements are unsupported by the listed sources, but verifiable elsewhere:

The following statements are unsupported by the listed sources:

  • "that has been compared by Reuters" Reuters didn't compare the two, only mentioned it as background.
  • "seen with a smoking engine descending in a flat spin" Reuters reports eyewitness accounts of fire, not smoke
  • "vanished from radars 27 minutes later" Author's analysis maybe?
  • "27 minutes after takeoff" Author's analysis maybe?
  • "According to Georgian authorities and Turkish officials"
  • "by November 13"
  • "By November 14, Turkish and Georgian officials continued joint inquiries."
  • "and support" NATO Secretary General expressed his condolences. No source supports the statement that NATO offered support or expressed condolences.

The following are style guide issues:

  • "The cause of the crash remains under investigation" (present tense)
  • "but investigations are ongoing..." (present tense)
  • "Georgian authorities confirmed the wreckage was found near the border region." exact same sentence in lede, not an SG issue per-se, but should have been caught

Attribution: There are too many phrases to include here. Below are a few examples:

  • "killing all 20 military personnel on board"
  • "vanished from radars 27 minutes later"
  • "the wreckage was found near the border region"
  • "all soldiers were killed"
  • "communication was lost"
  • "the remains of the military personnel ... were recovered by November 13"
  • "the flight recorder (black box) was recovered"
  • "the cause of the crash remains under investigation"
  • "the cause of the crash remains undetermined"

Please vote using Keep, Remove, Neutral, or Comment followed by signature. Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 19:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and Votes

  • Keep My note is that the proposed level of scrutiny is too high. Articles written at the site are going to inevitably have issues and not be perfect if someone puts a few hours to check each letter. I do not see any of the above issues sufficiently major to require a retraction. If there is something that actually misinforms the reader about what happened, then it may be included in a correction. Gryllida 22:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikinews archival policy limits post-publication changes to narrowly scoped factual corrections with documentation. The issues raised in this proposal extend beyond isolated factual errors and include attribution, sourcing, and structural compliance problems, which are not ordinarily addressed through post-archival edits. This is why retraction is being proposed rather than incremental correction.Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 13:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Neutral Comment While on the first glance I couldn't find "smok" in the text of the sources, I haven't re-read them yet. Both Al-Jazeera and Independent clearly show, in video and photograph, that the falling airplane emitted plenty of smoke even before crashing into the ground; whether it was smoking engine, smoking wing, or smoking door, I cannot say right now, I am not an airplane expert, but it was not a cigarette. I don't like the idea of removing a piece of text just because it is plagiarism; re-phrasing would be preferable, so that information would not be lost. If Reuters has such a hostile robots.txt, then some tool, Earwig or whatever else, should alert the contributors against usage of such sources - forcing humans to do Earwig job manually is not sustainable. As it is, I cannot be certain that your points about lack of attribution are valid - information had to have come from somewhere, it just needs to be found where it came from. Will re-read later. Wikiwide (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify; the video and photographs showing smoke are of the Turkish C-130 crash itself. However, the “smoking engine descending in a flat spin” description originates from Reuters’ background reference to a separate, 2017 US Marine Corps KC-130 accident, not from reporting on this incident.
Even if the smoking engine statement was about the Turkish crash, for which there is video, Wikinews policy does not permit editors to analyze or speculate. As stated in the neutrality policy, contributors must avoid analysis and speculative interpretation unless explicitly attributed to qualified sources. In this case, we have reporting that sufficiently describes the scene without our interpretation or analysis. The change was not necessary.
Lastly, while the 'smoke' wording would be a minor issue in isolation, it reflects a broader pattern in this article involving unsupported claims, attribution gaps, and style guide issues that should have been fixed during pre-publication review. The retraction proposal is based on the cumulative impact of these issues rather than any single descriptive detail.
The plagiarism has already been removed as a priority along with placing a reader-facing note for transparency.Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 13:27, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove (retract with statement and blanking article) There is precedent for retracting articles with fewer issues and also specifically for inadequate reviews. For example:
I propose the following retraction statement:

This article has been retracted because a post-publication review identified multiple policy and guideline failures, including plagiarism, unsupported and misattributed statements, sourcing gaps, attribution problems, and style compliance issues. The cumulative scope of these problems made reliable post-publication correction impractical.
The last version of the article text can be found here.

Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 15:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 22, 2026

Roblox player uncovers cheating, awarded Guinness World Record

State reason for deletion request and sign with BigKrow (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Nomination again. BigKrow (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

nominating again with my evidence.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by BigKrow (talk • contribs)

Please add the specific evidence supporting this deletion request.
Per deletion guidelines and Wikinews:Criteria_for_deletion#Cases_where_deletion_may_be_required, deletion requests must clearly state the applicable criterion and the supporting rationale.
If no evidence or criterion is provided, the request cannot be evaluated and may be removed as procedurally invalid.Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 14:20, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This request does not cite any applicable deletion criteria or provide a supporting rationale, so it cannot be evaluated. It has now remained open beyond the recommended, seven-day period.
For reference, a consolidated list of related discussions is available on the article talk page.
As the reviewer of the article, I am noting my involvement for transparency. Absent any objections, I intend to close this request on procedural grounds with no action taken.Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 16:23, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This user is promoting story on other sources as well. @Michael.C.Wright BigKrow (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Remove —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BigKrow (talk • contribs) [2]

Abstain As the reviewer of the article, I am abstaining from voting. On further consideration regarding my previous note re:closing on procedural grounds, I will not close this request myself. An uninvolved administrator is invited to review and take any action necessary.Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 01:23, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Remove The original author is the subject of the article apparently and they contributed to the article. Conflict of interest. Lofi Gurl (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There’s no dispute that the author is also the subject; that’s already disclosed in the article and by the author’s COI statement.
WN:COI notes:

Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies [ WN:NPOV, WN:C, WN:NOT ], are closely adhered to. The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles. However, an apparent conflict of interest is a good reason for close review by the community to identify any subtle bias.

If there are concerns beyond the existence of a COI—such as issues with WN:NPOV, sourcing, or policy compliance—those would be helpful to outline with specific examples.Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 00:02, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The author disclosed that he was the subject of the article even before it was published, and the article was accepted even though the COI was known. The current note on the page says, "This article was initially created by its subject, who disclosed a conflict of interest. The content has since undergone review and substantive editing by other contributors. Further discussion about this article is available on its collaboration page." That note is sufficient. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion requests

Proposed deletions

 Purge server cache  For reference, it is currently July 13, 2026.

Copyvio

Delete articles posted before July 12.

Abandoned

Delete articles posted before July 11.

Minimal and PR

Delete articles posted before July 10.


Unsourced prepared

Delete articles posted before July 3

Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Deletion_requests&oldid=5025757"