Wikinews talk:Deletion requests

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search

Questions about the process[edit]

I have some questions about the deletion process:

  1. Is it possible someone turn the article out of the deletion request?
  2. If someone turned the article out of the deletion request, is it possible another person turn the article back to the deletion request?
  3. Supose someone turn an article out of the deletion request and the deletion deadline is 3 days left. Then, after 1 day someone turn the article back to the deletion request. The deletion deadline will be 2 days left or 7 days left?
  4. An article can be submitted to the deletion request many times? Example: I submit article A to the deletion request. Article A pass. Another day I submit article A to the deletion request again.

Carlosar 00:45, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  1. By turn, do you mean remove? On WP, the typical answer is that the article is left on the page for the full time, even if the agreement is that it will be saved.
  2. If it's been done before the time, I'd say yes.
  3. Not really sure.
  4. If the article survives deletion, I'd say it shouldn't be added again, at least for awhile.
Just to be clear, these are my views, but that's how i'd think these things should go. Lyellin 01:55, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Here are my ideas:
  • If a deletion request is obviously a mistake, it could be removed very quickly.
    • Example: someone says an image in the article is a copyright violation, and list the article for deletion. This is an obvious mistake because article does not have any problem. If anything, we need to delete the picture.
  • The deletion request tag on the articles could be removed before the full time, if there is a clear agreement that it will not be removed. But the discussion itself should stay for the whole period.
  • One a concensus is formed that we should not delete the page, the page should not be requested for deletion again for the same reason for a while. If there is a new reason/problem that is not previously discussed, then the same page could be re-requested soon. If enough time has passed to assume that people's opinions might have changed, the same page could be requested for the same reason.
Like Lyellin's, these are my personal ideas. Tomos 12:07, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reviewed articles[edit]

What do you do if we did not agree with an article which has been passed in review because we think it is not NPOV or some information is wrong? Should we put it at the Deletion request page? Some authors may protest against that saying that the article has already been reviewed and seeing the article listed here is negative(and maybe they are right). Is there a better alternative? What do you think? When an article should be listed here? What should we do if we think an reviewed article has some mistakes? --- Carlosar 08:12, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmm.. It sounds like something that could happen sooner or later. Here are my ideas about articles that are 1)reviewed and 2)objected for factual accuracy, bias, or other problem:

  • If someone finds a problem in a reviewed article and people agree that the problem is too severe to fix, then we should perhaps delete it.
  • If there is libel and other legal consequences due to inaccuracy or other problem in a reviewed article, then we should delete it. Sometimes, those things could be fixed, but the past version that is still available to the general public does contain the inaccurate info. So those versions should be deleted, at least.
  • If the newly found problem is something fixable, we should fix it and re-submit to the community review.
  • When someone finds a problem, and discussing if the problem is real, if we can possibly fix it, if there is any legal consequence, we can list the article at deletion request. We can also add a tag to indicate that there is a dispute about this article's accuracy/ neutrality/ etc. When to attach the tag, when to request deletion, and other such issues could be somewhat controversial, and I don't have any good idea.

Again, just my personal views. How does that sound? Tomos 09:11, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Here are some of my ideas: Carlosar 13:10, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  1. If you think a page is not NPOV or has wrong information or other problem you submit it to the Deletion request page.
  2. A lot of people start discussing the article problems at the Deletion request page. The page status is changed to "Article development" and people try to fix the page and get into a consensus so the page can be published. The Deletion request logo is changed to "The neutrality of this article is disputed" at the page .The page is reviewed,frozen and get out of Deletion request.

Update[edit]

The Deletion request page demands an update. It is big and some deletion requests have expired. -- Carlosar 21:08, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I cleaned up some. I would say if the non-deletion is the agreement, and a week passes by without anyone commenting, we can remove the discussion. How would that sound? Tomos 21:38, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, but move them to the archives please. I'll go through and delete what I can as well. Lyellin 03:08, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Where are the other reviewers?[edit]

I think I am the only person who is criticizing the articles which had been posted here. Where are the other reviewers? -- Carlosar 01:02, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Deletion request page updated[edit]

I have updated the Deletion Request page. Please see if I did it in the right way. Thanks -- Carlosar 23:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

moved from article page[edit]

Publication of IRC logs without permission of copyright holders[edit]

As copyright holder of my words in the unpublished copyrighted work in the IRC log posted on Talk:Wikinews covered on CNET News.com/notes. I request deletion of my comments on that page, deletion of them from the archived version of the page and deletion of them from any revisions and any archive table revisions containing them (specifically, but not limited to, the page User:Amgine copied the work from). The archive table is the one which allows an article to be undeleted. IRC discussions are unpublished copyrighted works and as unpublished works are rather hard to use under fair use. Jamesday 13:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

IIRC (the page has been blanked already) that log comprised only a short chat between jwales and myself and a few extra ontopic comments from others, there was no material at all from yourself. i also recall editing out offtopic comments in order to make it more usefull as background material. can you please cite where IRC discussions are defined as unpublished copyrighted works, thank you. - Onymous 81.217.21.244 15:10, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The page hasn't been deleted. Nor, I assume, has the copy in the page it was apparently copied from. Jamesday 17:06, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What is this deletion request really about?[edit]

I'm really baffled now that I looked into this a bit more.

This request seems more than a bit odd coming from Jamesday. In the entire conversation, he interjects only once, at 18:33, with the three word remark, "after higher standards:)".

If this remark was somehow embarrassing, defamatory, or obscene, I could understand. But invoking copyright and wiretapping laws over an "unauthorized" quote of three words seems like gross overkill.

Plus the main conversation is between Onymous and Jimbo Wales, and is clearly an interview context where Onymous is asking Jimbo questions about Wikinews and its role in the world. These are valuable insights that benefit the reader to the point that "fair-use" rights surely apply here beyond Jamesday's rights to his three word remark, "after higher standards".

If discussions on a public forum about Wikinews, with the founder of Wikinews (and Wikipedia) participating, can't even be quoted by one of the primary participants, I guess I'm just not getting what this project is all about.

Aren't we a community?

If there is some sort of grudge between Jamesday and Onymous, I wish they would work it out between themselves and let the rest of the Wikinews community benefit from this discussion, as Jimbo appears to be quite a busy person and we don't get the opportunity to read his comments all that often.

I've left a comment on Jamesday's user talk page asking him to reconsider his request to delete this page.

DV 15:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please see comments in response to these points on Talk:Wikinews covered on CNET News.com/notes -- Sannse 15:30, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Please see the comments of Jimbo Wales, sannse and myself on the talk page. That channel is a place for informal discussion and one where confidential things like potential sponsorship deals are sometimes discussed - those can't be discussed there if logs get published. The problem is the conduct of Onymous, objected to by every other participant in the discussion who has been online since we became aware of it. Onymous, prior to this inappropriate publication, is not someone I've had any views about. Jamesday 17:06, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No, that was not clearly an interview - if anyone believed it was, it was only Onymous - I certainly didn't. People routinely come to IRC channels and ask questions. You might check the fair use requirements for unpublished works and also the journalistic ethics practices for off the record discussions - and identifying yourself as a journalist conducting an interview so those being talked to have a clue that they are giving an interview. Jamesday 17:11, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Deletion for copyright violation reasons[edit]

User:Simeon posted a series of comments that imply that we should not be blanking and listing for deletion suspected copyright violations, on grounds that such articles should instead be given a chance to improve, that some variation from text constitutes fair use, that we should wait for the copyright holder to complain and that there's question about the jurisdiction of copyright enforcement.

I believe that most of these questions have been answered by work on Wikipedia. Specifically, the laws that apply are the laws of the State of Florida, United States. The approach taken by users at Wikipedia is to not tolerate any copyright violations, defined as having content being a copy of any non-GFDL source (public domain in our case). According to accepted practice, small changes to content are not a defense against copyvio. The {{copyvio}} template does say that the article is to be rewritten on the /Temp page, giving an option for a rewrite. Legally, "fair use" is a fairly narrow concept that does not apply to taking content as-is and using it as part of your product (i.e. a quotation from an article is fine, but using paragraphs from an article as part of your article's copy is not fine).

Is there agreement on this? Do we need a page that defines what a copyvio is, and what a copyvio is not? -- IlyaHaykinson 22:13, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree, generally, that many of the copyvio questions have been answered by the practice on Wikipedia. However, you should realize that the press has a wider latitude regarding "fair use" than most any other uses of copyrighted materials.
To put it most simply, the press, through its use of a copyrighted material, is usually applying the "transformative" defense of fair use: it is becoming "news" through the use, in contrast to what it was previously. (This is also why Wikinews's quoting of other news sources is more problematic; that is non-tranformative usage.) There are other elements of fair use which might be brought up, but that's the biggy for us.
A page describing copyvio would be a good tool for showing new editors how to avoid issues, and when/why a copyvio tag should be added to an article.
I'm working on a deletion policy page as well. If copyvio comes up, I'll see about the page. - Amgine 22:28, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ingested Fluoride Needless; Children Dangerously Overdosed, Studies Show[edit]

  • Reason: Potential copyright violaton. The first revision of the article [1] looks very similar to the article here [2].
    • I have read several paragraphs from the beggining and they are the same in verbatim, except that the wikinews article has some lines that is not in the external page.
    • The external page is dated as May 2003, so it does not look like that external site copied us.
    • The page has a copyright notice with the company as the copyright holder. If that is the case, there is very small chance, I assume, that the article is posted by the legitimate copyrightholder of the article. But I am not confident about this point. Perhaps the columnist (Paul Beeber) retains the copyright and he might have posted his column here.
    • A random (admittedly casual, not systematic) Google search did not return any other pages sharing the parts of text that I checked, and therefore it does not look like it is based on press release or some public domain material. The fact that it looks like a signed column makes if more likely that it is an original writing. Again, this means that the similarity is not a result of having a common public domain source.
    • All factors combined, I would say we better delete this article as a likely infringement. If further information is supplied from the original contributor (a non logged-on user), or others, my opinion might change depending on the nature of the information. Tomos 09:42, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I blanked and made it a copyvio. Good catch. -- IlyaHaykinson 09:50, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete and fix.
The article at first glance is a direct copy from the original. However, many of the expressions have been changed to some degree, gaining some originality. This process could be continued if people are worried about that the degree of similarity is still too great, and should be, rather than simply shooting first and asking questions later.
The author has enhanced the original copy to a significant degree by embedding references within the text, something which the original copy does not have. This is a real and substantial benefit. Put together with protections for fair use in discussion forums and news reporting which I believe probably apply, and with a genuine effort (if one was applied) to improve the article to a more acceptable state, I don't see that this could be successfully the subject of legal action.
It seems somewhat overcautious to remove articles even before we have received notice from the copyright holder, even an ISP gives that much protection to their users free speech rights.
Since this is wiki, why not give wiki users a chance to fix the article up and retain the value that has been added, rather than slip it under the rug as if embarrassed? If we are to collaboratively work on source material like this it is not unreasonable to allow for the first draft to be similar to the source, while expecting a final version to be substantially different.
Furthermore, I am not at all confident that the wikinews article is not protected by the fair use protections even if left in its current state. My main reason for wanting to change the article is because it needs some work, and because it is just a poor effort to copy such large tracts, not because I think the work is actually illegal. Simeon 16:35, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I must recuse because I have been involved in research dealing with youth dental risks and resiliency in large-scale datasets. However I should point out that, in addition to the copyvio issues, this article is presented as though this were a widely held scientific consensus; I assure you this is an extreme minority view far outside the norm: in other words, POV. Should Wikinews be presenting tractates? - Amgine 07:17, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

-- Above article was deleted for Copyvio. It can be re-written as an original, NPOV article in the future. -- Davodd | Talk 09:47, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Simeon, copyvio tags are supposed to list the site the content was taken from, so its normally easy for others to start with it if they desire. But, I think you (Simeon), may be correct *if* the copyvio is to an offline or commercialaly restricted source. In such uncommon senerios, we could still blank the article, but provide a link to the pre-blanked version of the article, and not delete it for some time. Nyarlathotep 22:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletion request for "Perpetrators of Iraq mosque attacks..."[edit]

The only two sources listed, Al-Basrah and GlobalResearch.ca, are hardly reputable media organizations. Not to mention that a single author wrote both sources and we all know what happens when only a single source is used. Further, simply pasting a large quote as news is inappropriate. If you can find more evidence and sources for this story, then it should be rewritten professionally instead of simply copying and pasting. Otherwise, it should be removed. Sduffy 13:24, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Articles to be deleted (already archived) when the software issue is resolved[edit]

What is the software issue, an admin deleted images uploaded by a vandal this morning, so I was woundering what this section is for then.--Ryan524 19:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tell people about DR (proposal)[edit]

If something is listed on dr, that the majority of it is the work of one wikinewsie, they should be notified. Often they forget to put {{publish}} on their article, then three days later it magicly dissapears. This especially applies to new users, who don't know what happened, and don't know, or are intemidated by the undeltion process. Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 21:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I Support this, it won't be hard to do Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 21:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Fine, but it usually easier to just delete the {{abandoned}} and publish if it might survive. Otherwise, list & tell. Nyarlathotep 22:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Extreme Apology[edit]

I must've edited an old version of this page yesterday by mistake and deleted others comments in the process; thanks to Brian NZ for correcting. Neutralizer 13:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

7 days for non-articles[edit]

I think pages which are not articles (categories, portals, policies etc) sholuld face the same time as OR stuff (7 days). These pages are less likly to have their contributors see the dr in the period of three days. Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 23:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 23:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah why not. PS nice to see {{flag}} being used; good, isn't? Dan100 (Talk) 21:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I love flags. They've been imensly useful. Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 22:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Since no one has said no, and this has been here for a while, I'm implementing. Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 04:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Deletion requests -- archive[edit]

Is there a pointer to archives somewhere? I can't find it.
--67-21-48-122 17:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikinews:Deletion requests/Archives. ReporterFromAfar3136 15:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

   1 How to list a page here 
   2 Note for admins 
   3 Deletion requests 
   3.1 January 30 
   3.1.1 Helicopter circling over Burlingame, CA 
   3.1.2 Producer Timbaland "samples" music by copying whole song 
   3.2 January 29 
   3.2.1 El Paso, Texas hospital endangering staff 
   3.3 January 28 
   3.3.1 Template:Flagicon 
   3.3.2 Template:Carver County, Minnesota 
   3.3.3 Template:Minnesota/Counties 
   3.3.4 Image:Msnbc bushpoll.jpg 
   3.4 January 27 
   3.4.1 Tim Kalemkarian runs for US President, US Senate , US House 
   3.4.2 PREXCEL-Q solves the complexities of real-time qPCR 
   3.5 January 26 
   3.5.1 Church group backs 'extremist' mosque 
   3.5.2 Saturday's Stakes Preview - November 25, 2006 
   3.5.3 Ermine takes Falls City; Premium Tap favored in Clark 
   3.5.4 Record crowd welcomes racing's return to New Orleans 
   3.6 January 24 
   3.6.1 Image:Allende.jpg 
   3.6.2 Image:Reservationprotest.jpg 
   3.7 January 23 
   3.7.1 image:Firefox logo.gif 
   3.7.2 Adoption 
   3.7.3 TxtPower_spread_its_news_around_the_globe 
   3.8 January 21 
   3.8.1 Portal:Norwood Young America, Minnesota 
   3.8.2 Image:Roxburymosque.jpg 
   3.9 January 19 
   3.9.1 New version of SearchInform 3.2.08 
   3.9.2 Celebrity_big_brother_racism 
   4 Proposed deletions 
   4.1 Abandoned 
   4.2 Copyvio 
   4.3 Minimal 
   5 Undeletion requests

This is the biggest deletion request contents box I've ever seen on Wikinews :) I guess we're getting bigger or the copyvioers are gettin' loose again! FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 01:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Or we're geting lazy. a bunch of those could have died already (normal articles are three days) Bawolff 08:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Normal articles are seven days. Copyvios are three days. FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 00:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope, copyvio is 1 (but technically its seperate from dr).

Quote

Articles written from other news sources are listed here for a period of three days. Original reports have to be listed for seven days. Non-articles also appear for Seven days.

Bawolff 00:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Quote

Articles written from other news sources are listed here for a period of three days. Original reports have to be listed for seven days.


I am a little confused. How about articles that are not original and are not from other news sources? FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 21:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

leave old pages be[edit]

while listing or deleting articles, keep in mind that Wikinews did not always function in the same way that it does today. old pages that served a purpose at an earlier period, but which is no longer used or has been superceded can be left in place as being of historical interest, especially those which also include content, such as Passenger ship Voyager radios SOS in the Mediterranean/Line. deleting these serves no purpose. if needed, u can tag them as historical or superceded. –Doldrums(talk) 09:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Unused unfree images[edit]

We currently have quite a backlog of images which are not freely licensed and whose use on Wikinews would come under the fair use defence. Since they aren't used we cannot use this defence so these images should be deleted. I wrote a quick PHP script to search through the subcategories of Category:Fair use images in order to discover the magnitude of this problem. The results of this are at User:Adambro/Unused, and as you will see there are over 100 images.

I've raised this on IRC in order to seek a solution to this problem and to try and come up with a policy on what to do in the future. User:Brianmc has suggested tagging these images which an {{unused image}} template to categorise theses images in a similar way to {{Abandoned}} to list them on WN:DR for a period of seven days during which users can raise an objection to the deletion by moving to to the normal deletion request process and opposing the deletion.

It was suggested that unused images shouldn't be tagged with {{unused image}} until seven days to ensure that image wasn't uploaded for an article to be written imminently. This would mean that an unused image could be deleted after 14 days after it was uploaded. Another suggestion was that waiting seven days after tagging to delete in cases where the image was uploaded more than seven days might be unnecessary however this could complicate the process slightly more. The time between tagging and deletion is probably a point worthy of discussion. As is whether we should notify the user and in what circumstances.

I'd welcome any comments on this proposal. Adambro 19:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that in all cases a comment should be left with the uploader as soon as the image is tagged. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Nice, - Full Support Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 21:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
sounds good to me. i've no particular preference between the alternatives of 'tag first and wait' or 'wait and tag' so long as there is a wait. –Doldrums(talk) 05:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Well balanced solution.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion request for Hiretrade[edit]

The article Hiretrade looks like blatant advertising and doesn't seem to qualify as a valid news article. I hope you consider my request, guys... Blakegripling ph 23:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion request for Free Knowledge Project - The Newest Technology in Modrern Education[edit]

This article is only advertising ... Grimlock 08:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion request for 2007/08 German Bundesliga: Bayern Munich has early stranglehold on championship after one-sided game[edit]

The author is a Bayern Munich fan, hence the article is inherently point-of-view (an early diff). Also, I don't see how a two-point lead is a "stranglehold" when three points are awarded for a win. - 69.207.236.60 15:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews:Story preparation/Wikipedia versus the WebComics: Define notability[edit]

Would it possibly make sense to add something like w:Template:Not a ballot to the top of this deletion discussion? JoshuaZ 18:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually tempted to semi-protect this page, as the comments are getting very annoying and most (if not all) of the opposes are not that relevant or with no relevant reasoning, and would likely carry little if no weight in closing anyway. Matt/TheFearow | userpage | contribs 20:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I just went to add that template, but it was deleted one day ago. Adambro, what was your reason? You didnt provide a reasoning in the deletion message. Matt/TheFearow | userpage | contribs 20:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
It was copied from wikipedia (GFDL vs CC-by). Bawolff 21:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I think a temporary semi-protect would be acceptable. (I don't know about you guys, but I really couldn't care less about somebody who just signed up to vote, opinions). Bawolff 21:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
In response to the previous comment: Indeed and not wanting to get involved in more problems I deleted it. However, on many occasions templates have been copied from WP on the basis that template code is not really the same as article content and I'm not aware of any objections being raised by Wikipedians. Adambro 21:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
For sufficiently simple templates this isn't an issue because they are likely not copyrightable, or the copyrights are not enforceable. However, this is an extensive template that was constructed by a lot of thought and detailed discussion at Wikipedia, so the GFDL concern is larger. We may want to just paraphrase the main text and use that. `JoshuaZ 21:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Closing when no consensus[edit]

When a deletion request closes with no consensus, should the status quo remain by default? For example, if an undeletion request fails to reach a consensus, the page remains deleted. Similarly, for a deletion request, the page remains visible to all users.

There are at least a couple of alternatives:

  1. Discuss each failure on a case by case basis
  2. Go by default unless the closing admin sees good reasons why a default close would be unwise
  3. Have no default, and leave 'no consensus' closes entirely to the discretion of each closing admin

Is there an established practice for these situations?

--InfantGorilla (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

General convention, from what I have seen, is to keep the status quo if there is no consensus one way or the other. I'm assuming you're talking about the DR of the interview? Tempodivalse [talk] 13:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
While we're on the subject, I've been wondering about a related point. The policy at the top of the page is crystal clear that a deletion discussion must remain open such-and-such days, in this case seven. It is less explicit that a discussion must not be allowed to go on any longer than that. Should there be (I can see both sides of this question) an explicit statement in the policy that a discussion can be closed at any time after the deadline, but admins are not required to close it promptly if discussion is active and seems to be making headway toward consensus? --Pi zero (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Generally the status quo has indeed been how its done. I would call consensus to do something with the interview was established; be it blanking, deletion or my proposal, the last being what we got. Towards Pi Zero: We should just add that in. It makes sense that if consensus may be established with a bit more discussion then it should be left. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Abdul Qadeer Khan[edit]

I'm not sure where the consensus is to keep this category. Perhaps someone would care to explain? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Since nobody has, I shall implement the fairly apparant consensus and delete it. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Status of this venue[edit]

Seems that the "Deletion requests" venue is no longer populated as it was in 2000s. Therefore, I wonder whether it serves purpose anymore. How would closing this venue affect Wikinews:Criteria for deletion policy? --George Ho (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Everyone familiar with the sisters expects to find a page like this. It's valuable to have this when an occasion comes that it's needed, there's no significant cost to having it, and the cost of getting rid of it and then later wanting it again would be massive. Speaking more broadly, looking for ways to "simplify" the project by eliminating elements of it would be harmful to the project; we aren't looking for ways to shrink the capacity of the project, quite the contrary.

The historical disparity in activity here is indeed more than just level of project activity: before the modern era of review, and associated standards, deleting articles that didn't measure up (and, I gather, squabbling about it) was a major part of the workflow (whereas now the vast majority of them simply cease activity when they haven't got a chance of passing anymore, and pass through abandonment). So I expect this will probably never be as bustling as it once was, nor would we want it to be; it's simply here when needed. (You don't remove the emergency escape valve on a steam boiler just because you've never seen steam escaping through it.) --Pi zero (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm.... all right about the venue. Meanwhile, what about updating that "deletion" policy? Add more criteria? Relax the criteria? Tighten them? How else? --George Ho (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any problem with the deletion policy. We're not particularly bureaucratic (it's not my fault the level of privs I have here is called "bureaucrat" :-). --Pi zero (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)