Wikinews:Deletion requests
 |
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. |
|
Deletion
|
 Content requests |
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. |
| Admins | To close a Deletion Request
|
| 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. |
| Admins | To close an Undeletion Request
|
Deletion requests
[edit]September 11, 2025
[edit]This is a proposed retraction of a published article.
As stated on the article talk page: the article contains no attribution, meaning every statement is presented in Wikivoice, asserted by Wikinews.
Additionally, several key statements are unsupported by the sources provided (emphasis added):
- "Survivors described the floods as sudden and catastrophic..."
- "The scale of destruction was unprecedented..."
- "...with dozens of villages damaged or flattened..."
- "The recent flash floods in Pakistan amid heavy monsoon rains have caused one of the deadliest natural disasters in the region..."
- "...amid worsening weather conditions..."
The review summary noted that the last paragraph was “probably AI generated and needs some revision to reduce bias and make it more factual,” meaning the bias was recognized at the time of publication. A 12-hour window was provided for revisions, but the issues were not addressed. Since the article still contains unsupported statements and lacks attribution, and more than 24 hours have passed, the problems cannot be corrected without a substantial rewrite, which WN:ARCHIVE prohibits. Therefore, a correction statement is insufficient; the article should be fully retracted, with its content blanked and replaced by a retraction notice.
As stated by the original author, the article was mostly written by AI. According to WN:AI (a proposed guideline), "Wikinews articles must always reflect human-reviewed accuracy, neutrality, and verification of sources."
Given the issues with WN:NPOV, WN:Source, and WN:AI, I propose this article be retracted.
Comments
[edit]
Comment If consensus is to remove the article, I propose the addition of the following retraction statement and a blanking of the article:
This article has been retracted because it failed to comply with our sourcing policy, neutrality policy and recommended guidance for AI/LLM use.
The last version of the article text can be found here.
Votes
[edit]Please vote using 
Keep, 
Remove, 
Neutral, or 
Comment followed by signature
Neutral, BigKrow (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- Could you share a bit more about your perspective? For example, do you see a preferred course of action besides retraction, or do you view the article differently than my assessment, or do you think a specific policy or guideline needs to be changed? Your thoughts could help shape consensus before the discussion closes.Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 13:09, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- I will vote per nom. Thanks @Michael.C.Wright BigKrow (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- I didnt get it. Why not do "correction" by removing biased words? Gryllida 20:44, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- I will vote per nom. Thanks @Michael.C.Wright BigKrow (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Support Since this was "mostly" AI generated and includes several unsupported statements, I think we should retract the article. We need to ensure we are not allowing "AI Slop"[1] to creep into Wikinews.Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 01:57, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
August 19, 2025
[edit]This request for deletion has been closed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to pass with consensus.
This is a proposed retraction of a published article.
- There are eighteen unsupported statements.[2]
- The article includes mention of an anonymous source that is not supported by any of the listed sources.
- The article was not declared as Original Reporting (OR). If the anonymous source was ours, the article must be labeled OR and the source should have been declared to Scoop.
- The article contained a misleading, hyper-realistic image generated by AI meant to depict the protestors. (It has since been removed, post-publication.)
- The article currently contains an image of protestors in hazmat suits taken during a previous protest in 2024, not this protest. It should be labeled as a file photo. Our article describes protestors wearing hazmat suits but a source article describes protestors dressed in black.
- Retraction is an extreme remedy. However, the shear number of errors, I believe, precludes a simple correction.
Given these issues combined, the article as written is misleading and heavily biased, making several, unsupported assertions in 'wikivoice'. Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 13:09, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- Comment We risk demoralizing contributors if retraction is seen as the default rather than a last resort. To be clear, the fact that this was published with so many issues is not the fault of the original author. Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 13:09, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- If consensus is to remove the article, I propose the addition of the following retraction statement and a blanking of the article:
This article has been retracted because it failed to comply with our sourcing policy, and contained misleading information.
The last version of the article text can be found here.
Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 14:03, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Votes
[edit]Please vote using Keep, Remove, Neutral, or Comment followed by signature
Remove per nom. This article has far too many problems to be resolved only through post-publication corrections. It appears to have been originally LLM-generated, and even after it was revised by its author it contains serious verifiability issues. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Remove very unsourced. BigKrow (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2025 (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, admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.
August 11, 2025
[edit]I believe this article is too specific and promotional to be included. I think that maybe a wider article about this audit could be acceptable however. VinderV (talk) 09:04, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- Also the source "Elite Traders Inc." seems to be owner or at least linked to Mr. Hunt. VinderV (talk) 09:06, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]Votes
[edit]August 4, 2025
[edit]Want to make new article Badak Ironman (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2025 (UTC).
Comments
[edit]Votes
[edit]July 28, 2025
[edit]=== Elias Ruetsch enters global Top 30 on Crunchbase as Latin America’s visibility rises
Promotional spam. VinderV (talk) 04:32, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]Votes
[edit]December 5, 2024
[edit]Unused in a news or documentation and was previously marked for speedy deletion. "Stale or not news" is not a valid deletion reason here by the looks of it. I could not confirm it is copyvio. Can you confirm or transfer to commons? Gryllida (talk) 06:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]Votes
[edit]- Delete. The file have no license. --MGA73 (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Unused in a news or documentation and was previously marked for speedy deletion. "Stale or not news" is not a valid deletion reason here by the looks of it. I could not confirm it is copyvio. Can you confirm or transfer to commons? Gryllida (talk) 06:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]I've requested speedy deletion for these two files, as well as the subject of the next request, since as pointed out below, they lack licensing information and therefore contravene the fair use policy, which is one of the CSD. Heavy Water (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Votes
[edit]- Delete. The file have no license. --MGA73 (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Unused in a news or documentation and was previously marked for speedy deletion. "Stale or not news" is not a valid deletion reason here by the looks of it. I could not confirm it is copyvio. Can you confirm or transfer to commons? Gryllida (talk) 06:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]Votes
[edit]- Delete. The file have no license. --MGA73 (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
October 17, 2023
[edit]NurMi spam
[edit]- Full text of the 18 October issue of the Git tutorial reading
- How would you express the emotional repository NurMi in numbers?
- Can NurMi help depressed users?
- NurMi HQ, on the AI for breaking - Breaking friend NurMi that relieves corona blues depression popular as an app to overcome depression
- NurMi CPS: Performance indicators of NurMi, a dailies show repository
- What is your NurMi spooned?
All of these articles appear to be largely incoherent (probably machine translated) spam. Omphalographer (talk) 00:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Remove Delete and block account. --Pitille02 (talk) 04:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Done Thanks @Omphalographer and @Pitille02. 
Gryllida (talk) 05:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
August 28, 2023
[edit]This request for deletion has been closed by Microchip08 (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to delete.
Overly broad. There was near-unanimous agreement in 2018 on the talk page this cat is not suitable as-is.
There, Pi stated something, in fact, I've long thought of this cat: "Few articles get added to this category for much the same reason few get added to Category:World: if interpreted in a simplistic way they would be so absurdly inclusive that they would be useless, so the only way there's any point to populating them at all is they're given some narrower interpretation — but the name of the category gives no obvious support to any narrower interpretation, leaving it up to individuals to occasionally put things here as it's not clear what else to do with them."
I see this as an unsuitable sort of union of a few cats: Women's rights, e.g. Arizona bans abortion for genetic abnormalities, the Wikimedia gender gap, e.g. Wikimedian Cindy Ashley-Nelson dies at conference in Berlin, and, as discussed on the talk, some as-yet nonexistent third cat for articles like Qatar appoints four women to its law-drafting Shura Council which don't exactly relate to women's rights but are more "women breaking glass ceilings". I'm unsure what we should call the hypothetical third cat — perhaps "Gender politics" (in the spirit of Category:Gun politics) — but I think it should replace this one. Heavy Water (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Michael.C.Wright, @Gryllida BigKrow (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- @BigKrow, did you have a question about this deletion request or are you looking for someone to take action on it?Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 13:20, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- Hopefully some action? @Michael.C.Wright thank you. BigKrow (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- @BigKrow, did you have a question about this deletion request or are you looking for someone to take action on it?Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 13:20, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]Votes
[edit]- Remove I vaguely recall the 2018 vote, but keeping this will inevitably invite more gendered categories. --SVTCobra 23:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- Remove as outlined above. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 19:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Remove and replace with "Gender politics" as suggested by Heavy Water Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 23:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Remove per Heavy Water. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2024 (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, admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.
July
[edit]Undeletion requests
[edit]17 April 2025
[edit]Hello Administrators, Sorry to bother you, I know you are busy and i respect that. The Wikinews for this person that i helped to edit is for well known neurosurgeon and links supported added are from national and international news media sources like Aljazeera English, TRT Arabia , ITV and Good Morning Britain, Katapult (Magazin), Espreso TV, Vysoky Zamok (newspaper), ModernGhana and from well known journalists that you can check on them on the internet and they all got Wikipedia pages so they are legitimate, so there is no reason to request deletion for this page and i will try to add news and will appreciate your help also. best regards, Victoria Victoria Kuchereno (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC).
Comments
[edit]Votes
[edit]Proposed deletions
[edit]For reference, it is currently November 11, 2025.