WN:DR redirects here. For dispute resolution, see WN:DISPUTE.

Shortcut:
WN:DR

This page seeks to resolve the question whether a page or file should be deleted through consensus.

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. After the appropriate period, an admin looks at the page or file and determines whether consensus for deletion has been reached. If it has, the page is deleted. The period of time starts at the submission of the deletion request on this page.

You may also list an image, category or article pages on the candidate for speedy deletion page by adding {{delete}} to the page to be nominated for speedy deletion.

Read and be familiar with the Deletion guidelines before listing a page here, or debating on a page here.

Articles must fall foul of the Deletion guidelines to be listed here. Invalid listings will be removed. Editors may not edit the Deletion guidelines in order to justify their listing.

See the Deletion Log or the deletion archives to see what pages have been deleted.

This page is also the proper venue for discussing undeletion requests. If you object to speedy deletion of an article, or wish to overturn another deletion request, please list it here, an admin may undelete it for the duration of the vote, so that users may view the article they are voting on.

You no longer need to nominate abandoned articles, copyright violations, or minimal articles here — see Wikinews:Proposed deletion.

How to list a page here

Add {{Deletion request}} or {{dr}} to the image, category or article page.
- For suspected copyright violations, instead add {{Copyvio|url=insert_web_address_here}} The page will remain here for three days before being deleted.
- For abandoned articles, instead add {{abandoned}}, but please be aware that people often forget to {{publish}}.
List the link below using the following template:

=== [[Article title]] ===
REASON -- ~~~~
*ARGUMENTS -

Note for admins

If you wish to use templates to close a discussion, you can use

{{closed-dr}}
{{closed-dr-box}} and {{closed-dr-footer}}.

Deletion requests

June 1

U.S. court adds limit to police searches

Delete Has only one source, of which does not work. DragonFire1024 06:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has been published for too long to make disappear. --SVTCobra 23:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then sources need to be found, or we deal with a massive template noting the "correction." Cannot have an article with no verifiable sources. DragonFire1024 04:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Interwiki utility templates

They all need to die!!! Hell yes. We shall delete them all with no regret and happiness!!! —Fellow Wiki Newsie 00:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - way too specific, not in use. --SVTCobra 23:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 31

Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Drtsp

Per below. Please delete/look at all the pages listed (or list them here and comment on them) in the above link. I couldn't list all the pages as there are too many!! —Fellow Wiki Newsie 20:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral on {{fixhtml}} (I could see a case in the future where that may be useful, but its not incredibly useful, so I really don't care either way), everything else die in a hole. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Renewable energy

Encyclopedic, only effort to put an article in it was incompatibly copywritten material that was old. Unlikely to be consistently applied, virtually impossible to retroactively apply. Basically copying a structure from Wikipedia that is inappropriate here. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the corresponding Category:Renewable energy should also go. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both We already have Category:Environment and Category:Climate change. Is that enough? I think so. —Fellow Wiki Newsie 17:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for both. I noticed that it is User:Mac again. --SVTCobra 23:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 30

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

Norfolk clothes theft

Article has no sources and contains unsubstantiated allegations - linking unkown crime suspect to a public figure, and prejudicial statement implying people from Liverpool are thieves, both of which may be considered defamatory.CWiltshire 11:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

have deleted as suspected hoax. –Doldrums(talk) 12:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 26

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

Image:Bush Bird Poop.jpg

This is using another media’s image (it even has the ABC logo on it) and our fair use policy clearly states we cannot use images taken by the other media. According to policy, this should be speeded; however I’ll submit it here. It is a clear Delete Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 08:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a screen shot ({{screenshot}}) from listed video and qualifies as fair use under United States Copyright Laws.

I know I'm not supposed to edit this after the fact, but I'd like to point out the above is absulutly incorrect and wrong. The image Bawolff ☺☻ 23:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete once someone with more video-foo has replaced with the same image from the Whitehouse streaming video. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The image is essential to the story. Credit them, ABC, for broadcasting it. -Edbrown05 08:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a go at extracting the appropriate bit from the stream available from the Whitehouse but I just got blanks instead of the image. The problem here is there is a free alternative, the Whitehouse version of the video is PD. The link to that is on this page. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not blank...the zoom needs resizing...and thats fine...and I can get the image...but then the zoom is about 300%...cannot crop it because it will not crop where I tell it to. DragonFire1024 08:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can extract an image from this, please do. I spent about half an hour this morning looking for software to capture the stream so I could edit out an image. The ABC one is a competing news agency; since we didn't have a camera there it's the PD White House stream we have to use. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I too have experienced difficulty coping with screen shot behavior on videos. Good luck. -Edbrown05 09:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested help from Commons on getting a free image... Wait and see. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and get the free alternative.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until we get the free alternative. I have tried numerous times to capture the image, it's not an easy task! --Skenmy^{(t•c•w•i)} 12:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I succeeded for the screenshot of the NZNats interview, but indeed you can't simply screenshot the video, it needs to be hacked :-).--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got the shot I needed, thanks to BrianNewZealand :) DELETED. DragonFire1024 07:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 24

Women_ruining_BBC_claims_Patrick_Moore

This request for deletion has been closed by Example (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to delete.

Old news - event happened on May 8.--MarkTalk 09:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comment is correct, however this is an ongoing issue. LookerOn 09:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)LookerOn[reply]

Comment I will defer voting delete for the moment, but you need a more recently dated source to justify having the story here. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, user has not found a more recent source - just an older one that shows the event to be May 8 or earlier. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The more you revert ...

(cur) (last)  07:49, 31 May 2007 Brianmc (Talk | contribs) (1,192 bytes) (no recent source, no justification for date bump, old news, listed on deletion requests, revert) 
(cur) (last)  07:35, 31 May 2007 82.224.88.52 (Talk) (1,213 bytes) (Changing the initial date to get this brief be printed at last) 
(cur) (last)  06:32, 31 May 2007 Daniel.Bryant (Talk | contribs) (1,191 bytes) (No longer abandoned, was edited) 
(cur) (last)  14:55, 30 May 2007 82.224.88.52 (Talk) (1,204 bytes) (→Sources - British TV standards are deteriorating because the BBC is "run by women", astronomer Sir Patrick Moore has said) 
(cur) (last)  12:41, 30 May 2007 Brianmc (Talk | contribs) (1,122 bytes) (abandoned)

... The more it will become an older one that shows the event to be May 8. 82.224.88.52 09:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not reverted out the old May 8 source you added, and I waited several days to see if you were correct and if the event would develop - for example, by Patrick Moore being taken off the Beeb. Nothing happened, the story is deceased. It has slipped of it's mortal coil, it is an ex-story. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean saying Patrick Moore being taken off the Beeb: I'm not British but an European continental native. Here, the daily newspapers quite often publish news when several weeks old.

BTW the last time I got a publish banner unreverted here was about a story that was starting twenty years ago with just a minor development added. 82.224.88.52 11:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not current enough news according to our content guidelines. —Zachary ^talk 11:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this isn't news, and is outside the scope of Wikinews. Unless a source from the last two-three days is found, detailing developments in the story from the earlier links, no article on this event can exist. Daniel 11:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete DragonFire1024 11:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

May 21

Category:Templates using ParserFunctions

It is not fesable (or useful) to label every template using parser functions with this. Temnplates which do special effects go into category:Strange and unusual templates. This cat is part of TSP. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hell yes. —Fellow Wiki Newsie 00:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This request for deletion has been closed by Example (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to transfer to commons.

Image:Vitorlas4.jpg

This image was made by User:Kádár Tamás and is only used on his/her's userpage. Since this is not being used in any news articles it should be uploaded to commons instead. —Fellow Wiki Newsie 02:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. DragonFire1024 21:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the user images on Wikinews:Video 2.0/Newsreader should be uploaded to commons and deleted here. —Fellow Wiki Newsie 21:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder for any images transfered to commons that are user photos, should be tagged category:Wikimedians. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This request for deletion has been closed by Example (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to delete.

Portal:Budapest

Has no articles. —Fellow Wiki Newsie 21:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Budapest

Has no articles and it probably should be merged to Category:Budapest, Hungary. —Fellow Wiki Newsie 21:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

May 20

This request for deletion has been closed by Example (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to Delete with extreme prejudice.

TSP Pages

The list below shows a whole host of pages from the TSP project that i am requesting deletion for. Due to the shear size of the task i am listing them as a DPL.--MarkTalk 14:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The what project?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See meta:MP:TSP, WN:ALERT#User:Mac, meta:Talk:MP:TSP#Wikinews (Its the template sharing project, or as I like to call it, the lets copy all the most useless templates in the world to every single wikimedia project as they're to stupid to figure out how to create it on there own). Bawolff ☺☻ 19:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Template Sharing Project!! God havent you heard of it before!! It's like another commons delinker!!!--MarkTalk 19:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ALL. The only one I can see a use for is soft redirect. The rest are technobabble that is incomprehensible and arcane. It has no place on this wiki as we're not going to spend four hours fiddling with templates before publishing an article. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note a couple of these don't even work (like {{unicode}} as its more or less a css thing) The only one I like is {{tlx}}. (I have yet to see a use for a soft redirect, but we'll probably eventually have one) Bawolff ☺☻ 20:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect is used on Wikinews:Stewards, and could probably have a useful purpose on a few other pages too, though it makes more sense just to use direct wikilinks instead of linking to a local soft redirect. As for {{tlx}}, I have merged it into {{template}}, so keeping it is no longer necessary. -- Zachary 21:04, 21 May 2007

Keep -- they're doing no harm, and some good. With respect to [user:Mac], I wasn't aware he was even trying to help, though I did try to interest him a few months back on the commons when he messed up some categories, just this side of vandalism. Be advised he's not even reached high school as far as I can determine, which makes him younger than my two teens. // Fra nkB

I've taken a few hours to break 'them' down for you all by function and use here. The purpose of the templates you three seem determined to throw out is so that you all won't have to fiddle with documentation, or with templates to make them work site to site. That's TSP's mission-- we can certainly do other things with our free time -- and except for things like unicode, which is your antiquated .css page's problem, these all work, are all common on other sites (a part of the rationale of the project is to provide common tools in common categories, so others can be productive here or you there. I'd certainly suggest you keep Template:Lts regardless of what you do with tools. Template:I2Further, we've been very selective in whether to import a template here, this has a mere token of this, this, or that. In fact, I apologize for neglecting you so far as leaving the odd strategic redlink here and there. But you aren't a project which needs a lot of templates. (Upon a link check, I'm afraid they're all off on 'the totals' right now-- Interwikitmp-grp is being adjusted for proper categorisation, and the current version is skipping that function for the moment. The ratio's that are shown are still relatively indicative. You've hardly been picked upon or had templates forced down your throat.) Template:I2But do mind the rationale ... anything down the time pike in a template that's likely to be 'interesting and useful in a general template' will be likely linking to one of or using one of the small core one's you're about to discard, because they are what are becoming standard in documentation practices. More to the point, it's convienient as hell to just drop a link on a page in a discussion about what's going on elsewhere. Many of these even let you do that across languages. It's your time. You can disrespect the man-months we've put into this system, and frankly, we won't miss maintaining you as we can use the time elsewhere. But the concept that we just drop 'useless templates' willy-nilly goes beyond disrespectful. Good day. // Fra nkB 07:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If these templates were to be useful they'd have meaningful names. Call me an old-fashioned ex-COBOL programmer if you like, but I expect things like templates to have a name that indicates its usage; not have to have some documentation on tlxyzzy which I'd have to read for every template when I couldn't remember which of these obscure names I wanted. Oh, and long-winded responses make people's eyes glaze over.

Our "strategy" (if you can call it that) is to welcome people who set up an account or make an edit. That gives a link to a lot of our documentation straight off. In fact, you need read nothing else to effectively contribute to the project. People are then exposed to more of the details of our site by visiting the Water Cooler and the Newsroom. For templates, our three most-used are {{date}}, {{publish}}, and {{archive}}. Only one of those would be any use over on wikipedia.

The problem is, this has been approached in totally the wrong way. Like many things we feel it has been "imposed" as we were not consulted. This is a sure-fire way for ideas to end up on this page. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite reading Fabartus's rationale for keeping all of the template sharing stuff, I have to vote delete all to this. To me, it all seems like a mess of templates that depend on templates that require a bunch of other templates, which have no logical use by themselves.

For example, do we need to have a template that makes a link to meta? What's wrong with just doing [[m:Meta]]? There are also templates that make template links for other projects. But what's the need to format them with {{ and }} if they don't work as {{w:SomeWPTemplate}}? A link like [[w:Template:SomeWPTemplate]] can be used for that. The documentation pages don't work here; templates can't have subpages.

Also a note to whoever deletes the pages: check the Special:Whatlinkshere for pages that use the template, to check if they are used anywhere other than the template sharing stuff. —Zachary ^talk 01:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note on the below list some pages are erroneously listed because they include a template for deletion. If it is obvious that the page is not to be deleted then please don't worry it will not get deleted - just the section including one of the templates. There are no articles for this topic.

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.

This request for deletion has been closed by Example (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to delete.

Sudanese goat man now a widower

Nice story, but overdue.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete DragonFire1024 23:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it now qualifies as abandoned as well --SVTCobra 00:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Catmore

Links to the Catmore, England article on Wikipedia. —Fellow Wiki Newsie 01:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can see how this would be useful for Wikipedia, if there's a category that shares a name with an article, but I don't see the usefulness of this here. —Zachary ^talk 01:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete in a hole (Although we really should figure out some standard for the difference between portals and cats and how they link)Bawolff ☺☻ 02:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Drought

Dupe of already deleted Category:Droughts. —Fellow Wiki Newsie 01:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a subcategory of natural disaster. --Mac 09:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only one story - cat has been previously deleted. --MarkTalk 10:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

May 19

Portal:Kaupthing Bank

This request for deletion has been closed by Example (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to delete.

Too addy, and specific. No associated articles. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks more like spam. DragonFire1024 04:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete –Doldrums(talk) 05:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Old news, spam, direct copy and paste of a press release. —Fellow Wiki Newsie 02:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are similar pages for Google and I therefore request to have a news page for Kaupthing dagurjonsson Why can't I have a portal for kaupthing where the news for kaupthing is displayed similar as people are doing for Google ???

I have added this independent news for Kaupthing, http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Kaupthing_Bank%27s_First_Quarter_2007_Results which should be accepted for Kaupthing, the bank is the largest one in Iceland. If you need to adjust the text for Kaupthing the do so but please do not delete.

Hello again

The reason I have created this page is that I what do display on Wikinews a page for Kaupthing that is similar as the page for Google (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Google). Under this kaupthing page I want to display the headline for most resent Kaupthing’s press releases.

The newest press releases from Kaupthing are:

 Kaupthing Bank's stake in Storebrand has reached 20.00%, from May 14, 2007 (http://www.kaupthing.com/pages/164?path=http://cws.huginonline.com/K/133944/PR/200705/1126637.xml)  Kaupthing Bank's First Quarter 2007 Results, from April 26, 2007 (http://www.kaupthing.com/pages/164?path=http://cws.huginonline.com/K/133944/PR/200704/1121963.xml)

Good sources for these press releases which we can display in Wikinews are:

Kaupthing Bank's stake in Storebrand has reached 20.00%: http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2007/05/14/afx3717301.html

Kaupthing Bank's First Quarter 2007 Results http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=bankingFinancial&storyID=2007-04-26T120105Z_01_L26571395_RTRIDST_0_SP_PAGE_012-L26571395-OISBN.XML

My latest news entry in Wikinews for Kaupthing is http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Kaupthing_Bank%27s_First_Quarter_2007_Results and I need to fix this entry: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Kaupthing_Bank%27s_First_Quarter_2007_Results which I will do.

Kaupthing Bank is the largest company in Iceland and therefore I think it is reasonable that Kaupthing is allowed to have a news page on Wikinews and that older news / press releases displayed.

We am I not allowed to do this and why is Google allowed to this ???? I think your handling on this is not fair and not independent on you behalf.

Best regards Dagur Jonsson, user name dagurjonsson

Thankyou for your response. The main problem with this is the articles don't seem to be on topic enough. Generally they are about one sentence piece of new information on it, and then a couple paragraphs about the bank. That is not very news like. Articles should stick to what is new, and leave excessive background details to to other places like wikipedia. The biggest problem is if you ignore the background details, there is almost nothing there, sugesting there is nothing new. However this deletion request is about the portal. The portal currently has no published articles on it. Portals are usually required to have a number of articles (at least 7) before creation published about the topic. This is especially true for such a specific topic like this. Bawolff ☺☻ 18:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the news items raised as being article candidates are snippets of financial information that would best be put in part of a set of business briefs. To me the comparison with Google isn't valid. Google is in the public eye globally - however some of the stories there should - in my opinion - also have been relegated to a brief. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, way too specific to function efficiently as a portal, and I tend to agree with the this-may-be-part-of-a-spam-campaign comments above. For one, if the text of the portal was masquerading as an article on Wikipedia, it would be killed as spam under CSD G12. Not that such a criteria/action matters here, but I still think this is spam. Daniel 06:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

May 16

Category:Cardiovascular disease

Encyclopedic cat. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would agree on removing the "died from heart attack" articles, but there are some articles on research that are useful for Portal:Disease.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cat:Health; Delete DragonFire1024 06:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Morgan Tsvangirai poster.jpg

Movement for Democratic Change election poster, 2002, depicting their presidential candidate Morgan Tsvangirai.

The image description page claims: "Fair use to illustrate articles about the MDC or Morgan Tsvangirai". Uploaded from image on Wikipedia, which has been deleted for not having a source. Requested for speedy deletion previously.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Posters should only be fair use for related events, not for the person pictured.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This could have been taken by the user or someone else not associated with a news organization because a news agency that pays for images, would not pay for this. Keep if proper fair use rational can be determined, and if a possible CC lisence can be established. One year to do so. DragonFire1024 06:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tomstephens1.jpg

No fair use rationale, breaking news tag, no source listed, although the article says it's from the person's MySpace profile. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepIf can be sourced, then a fair use rational can be written for it. We have just under one year to do so. DragonFire1024 06:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Iranmap,1.gif

This request for deletion has been closed by Example (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to keep.

There is a lengthy discussion on the talk page of this image. I - personally - do not believe it should be deleted and want to test-case the new image policy. Can someone provide a fair use rationale? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 11:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Brian McNeil / ^talk 11:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I can understand why it shouldn't be fair use: (1) The image adds very little to the article, and the article will not be disrupted if we remove the article (it doesn't seem to interfere with our archive functions to me) (2) anyone with a little photoshop skill could create a free alternative, so this is in no way a unique picture that needs to be here. Working on illustrations is not squandering away your time, it's a reasonable part of an article, if you believe a diagram helps. I've added diagrams or illustrations on Wikipedia articles with my limited skills. If that's the problem, we should set up a page were people could ask for illustrators.

On the other hand, I'd like someone to explain why Crown Copyright images aren't acceptable; aren't all the four freedoms met?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For one I am not going to waste my time nor am I going to tell anyone else to waste their time to make a map using photoshop or any imaging software. That's ridiculous. This image does add to the article. 1) location 2) it happened at the embassy 3) there is no other map available. DragonFire1024 18:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also there are no images on commonc of the British embassy in Tehran. There is also nothing on the embassy's website. I have looked trust me. But as brianmc says...if one crown goes, then why keep any of the others, as they are not affected. DragonFire1024 06:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reasonable case that there cannot be a free content replacement.--Eloquence 21:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My "reasonable case that there cannot be a free content replacement" is that there was no free content replacement within the window of opportunity available to Wikinews. I'd put a hard and fast timeline on that - it's 10 days. After that our articles should be archived and become history. We're not wikipedia, we don't work like wikipedia, and we're not eternally fiddling with existing content. To give an example, if we have articles about GWB now - and they have less than perfectly free images - should we change them for free images when they become available fifteen years later? It might suit an evolving encyclopedia but it does not suit a news site that "fixes" their articles as a statement of what was known at a point in time. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Stevenfruitsmaak said, is there a reason why not allowing misleading reproductions are evil? Personally I don't think such things should be covered by copyright (thats other laws jobs) but if it is, is it that horrible? Bawolff ☺☻ 02:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the software used to make the map, where did you get the map, how did you obtain it...etc etc...and we add that to just about any image that would require PhotoShop, etc. And we are not commons. If someone is so concerned about making our own images, then tell commons to do that. DragonFire1024 02:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but with the GIMP, software isn't that great an argument, but it still takes time and skill, and we have a limited window of opportunity. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Brian on this one as well. What was allowed at the time the image was uploaded, prioir to the WMF's "resolution", should not be affected. Especially Grant Of Licenses. Many users, including myself, have gone through great troubles and lengths to get permission for those photos to be used in certain articles. Thats what news is about in regards to images...It is impossible. for all images in the news reporting world to be 100% free 100% of the time. DragonFire1024 02:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And also, quite frankly, some of us who do have that permission, should be lucky we got it without having to pay for it in $$$$$ like the AP or others do. DragonFire1024 21:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Proposed deletions

Purge Cache. For reference, it's currently December 2, 2024.

Copyvio

Delete articles posted before December 1.

17 October 2024: Exploring the Cunard Queen Anne: A New Era of Luxury Cruising
2 November 2024: Green Light For Devine Teah Transfer To Slavia Prague As He Passes Medical

Abandoned

Delete articles posted before November 30.

29 August 2024: Category:Abandoned, to be deleted in 2 days
29 August 2024: Category:Abandoned, to be deleted in 1 day
29 August 2024: Category:Abandoned, to be deleted 1 day ago
29 August 2024: Category:Abandoned, to be deleted 23 days ago
29 August 2024: Category:Abandoned, to be deleted 2 days ago
29 August 2024: Category:Abandoned, to be deleted in 4 days
29 August 2024: Category:Abandoned, to be deleted in 6 days
29 August 2024: Category:Abandoned, to be deleted today
9 September 2024: Category:Abandoned, to be deleted 3 days ago
9 September 2024: Category:Abandoned, to be deleted 4 days ago
9 September 2024: Category:Abandoned, to be deleted 5 days ago
9 September 2024: Category:Abandoned, to be deleted 6 days ago
9 September 2024: Category:Abandoned, to be deleted 1 week ago
4 October 2024: Art Outreach By Olusola David Ayibiowu Motivated Visual Art and Science Students in Lagos Schools
6 October 2024: Wikimedian blocked globally for 'trolling' Hong Kong journalists
7 October 2024: WHO declares global mpox emergency, UNICEF prepares conditional vaccine supply agreements
7 October 2024: Template:Gryllida-Abandoned
8 October 2024: Greek PM Kyriakos Mitsotakis meets with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in UN General Assembly
8 October 2024: Jimmie Johnson's Consistency
21 October 2024: Hurricane Milton, Category 3 makes landfall in Florida, United States
21 October 2024: World Wide Fund for Nature reports average 73% decline of wildlife populations since 1970
22 October 2024: Hurricane Milton may set record for most tornadoes spawned during a hurricane
22 October 2024: No.3 Oregon wins against No.2 Ohio state
22 October 2024: National championships in Philippines to take place at Puerto Princesa Palawan on November
25 October 2024: Eastern shore of Australia experiences strong thunderstorms as hot weather system enters South Australia
29 October 2024: Russian missile strikes residential building in Ukraine Odesa area, No numbers on hurt or dead
30 October 2024: British Actress Dame Maggie Smith dies age 89
30 October 2024: Around 25 million votes already cast as Kamala Harris and Donald Trump go to battleground states
2 November 2024: Russian Wikipedia: now has over 2,000,000 articles
5 November 2024: Israel confirms death of Hamas leader in Gaza
5 November 2024: Cotswold Wildlife Park breeds greater bamboo lemur in captivity for first time
13 November 2024: Two Days to the Election: an Update
17 November 2024: Concerns about BioRender copyright licensing spurs interest in beta release of NIH's BioArt public domain repository
19 November 2024: Person hit by train, Boston and New Haven
21 November 2024: Trump declares victory
23 November 2024: Prison riot in Ecuador, at least 17 killed
28 November 2024: Man drives car into crowd of people, killing 35 in southern China

Minimal and PR

Delete articles posted before November 29.

Unsourced prepared

Delete articles posted before November 22

Undeletion requests