Wikinews:Deletion requests/Archives/2008/Q2

This is the archive of Deletion Requests that were closed from April 1, 2008 through June 30, 2008.

WMF logos

 * Image:Commons-logo.svg
 * Image:Wikibooks-logo.svg
 * Image:Wikinews-logo.png
 * Image:Wikipedia without text.png
 * Image:Wikiquote-logo.svg
 * Image:Wikisource-logo.png
 * Image:Wikisource-logo.svg
 * Image:Wikispecies-logo.svg
 * Image:Wiktionary-logo-en.png

All of the above are local copies of various Wikimedia Foundation projects logos. They were copied here from Commons and protected to prevent a vandal from uploading an image with the appropriate filename and then it taking priority over the Commons version. This is no longer required because the MediaWiki software has been updated to allow for non-existent pages to be protected. Therefore these images are now redundant to the copies on Commons and can be deleted with the local page kept fully protected. Since the pages are protected it is of course not possible to add dr and I can't consider it worth me adding this to the talk pages since people are more likely to see the discussion here than a tag there. Adambro (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment

 * As the original uploader, a small clarification as to why they were uploaded. Commons was deleting logos without checking if they were in use on projects. This resulted in some bruhaha, and many projects uploading logos locally, especially after attempts to negotiate with Commons were rebuffed. I have no problem with the images being deleted if the images on Commons have now stabilized. -  Amgine | t 16:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, with this being a good few years ago I have no doubts that things will have been different and these images have lasted a good while on Commons now and I can't see any reason why they'd get deleted. I would be interested to learn a bit more about what prompted this reaction though so if there is anything on Commons which I should read which you're aware of which could help me understand this I'd very much appreciate it if you let me know. Cheers. Adambro (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Votes
However, the exception to this is Image:Wikipedia without text.png, which has no same-name equivalent on Commons. It will need to be replaced with Image:Wikipedia-logo.png, a comparable image (of larger size, but that shouldn't matter). EVula // talk // 18:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * with qualifications. First thing I'd like to be sure of is that none of these have changed since they were copied. Secondly I'd be worried that there might be a specific usage somewhere that only works from a local image (thinking special pages). Anyone who is a bit more MediaWiki savvy care to comment, or do we check with a dev? --Brian McNeil / talk 16:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * they appear unchanged in the versions at Commons. My stipulation for the closing Admin is that all instances be replaced so there are no broken images, wherever they are used locally. --SVTCobra 23:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There aren't any "instances" to be updated; just delete the local versions, and the system will pull the same file from Commons.
 * EVula // talk // 18:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * with the qualifications from Brian and Cobra. rootology (T ) 19:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * , per . Cirt (talk) 05:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Moldova/in depth
This sub-page of a portal seems to have been used a couple of times to by-pass the normal editorial process and include unsourced material. I have restructured the portal, initially based on the Germany portal, so it does not have a slot for this "in depth" entry. There are other potential formats. Furthermore, if there are other "in depth" entries on portals, I suggest we remove them as well. It seems ripe for abuse. --SVTCobra 01:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 * Portal Australia had some sort of an in-depth section (Portal:Australia/In-depth_coverage), but it was always well sourced, and followed all policies, so it doesn't have the problem here. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yet, the Australia "in-depth" was last updated in 2007. Again, I am not saying that they couldn't or weren't being used properly in most cases. I am just saying that we don't have the resources to oversee such an aspect of the Wikinews project. The history of the nominated "in-depth" speaks volumes of how it could be abused. --SVTCobra 01:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * per own nomination. --SVTCobra 01:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * per nom. Cirt (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * per nom Anonymous101 (talk) 06:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * per nom. Adambro (talk) 07:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a deceptive abuse to promote a specific POV. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama captures Democratic Nomination
With Hillary having conceded, and this not being used, it is - in my opinion - now obsolete. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom --Brian McNeil / talk 13:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * in the heat of reporting the news people always forget about the story preps. --SVTCobra 13:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * per nom --TUFKAAP (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * although perhaps this could have been done with less bureaucracy by tagging it as abandoned? Adambro (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Anonymous101  15:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Photoessay: Fat Tuesday Easy in DC and any other content related to Aselman's photo essays
Unfortunately, they only serve as galleries of non-free images with no rationale and with uses not covered by our fair use policy. We need to get in contact with him, although the essays are good, photoessays of non-free content are bad. ViperSnake151 (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments
Enough is enough. Multiple contributors have described what Adambro apparently sees as a "cleanup" as a crusade. It is. We are not Commons, we are not Wikipedia, we can, do, and will have images that are not free. We have them all over the place, and we will have more in the future. This abuse of WN:DR must stop. --15:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brianmc (talk • contribs)


 * Erm? Did I nominate this article and images? No. Have I been working to attempting to resolve this issue with the photographer? Yes. You really need to sort out your idea of what is and isn't constructive. Oh, will the abuse of fair use images stop any time soon then? Ahh, I see we're not like Wikipedia for the sake of this argument... Adambro (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, this crusade is about a line in the Exemption Doctrine Policy, "By March 23, 2008, all existing files under an unacceptable license as per the above must either be accepted under an EDP, or shall be deleted." Non-deriv = Incompatible. By means of the resolution, it has to go unless we can get in contact. ViperSnake151 (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * I support ND being added to the allowable FU images on Wikinews. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This was an experiment, by a valued contributer. We encouraged the use of photo essays, and at the time he was not required to release the images under a non ND license. So in spirit of that, and the archival value it should not be deleted. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 13:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Removing this would break the archive for sure, as we would be deleting a story, not just pictures. --TUFKAAP (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * per nom. I've attempted to contact the user regarding this issue via their talk page and email and have had no response. As per ViperSnake151, these aren't articles they are simply collections of unfree images. We don't need to and shouldn't add ND to FU to allow such images, we can use any image under fair use providing an appropriate rationale is provided and it falls within the fair use white list criteria. There is no change we could make to the FU policy which would make ND images free for our purposes, they are still unfree and as such need rationales. Unless someone writes a rationale for each of these images then they can be speedily deleted in accordance with the criteria. Oh no to delete these articles would "break" the archive, won't someone think of the archives?! There is no policy basis for these suggestions that we can't remove unfree images or delete entire articles that have been archived as appropriate. If people keep wanting to use this as justification for opposing the deletion of very questionable unfree images then they should propose such a policy and then get it approved by the WMF board due to the non compliance with the image resolution. Until such a policy exists then we work by current rules which say we should try to avoid editing archived articles but we should also ensure that all images comply with policy. Adambro (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an old article and old pictures. If the board has a problem with us running a news site, then they can tell us. Last I checked, it is not your responsibility or authority to tell us what the board is thinking. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 15:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The board has made their image policy clear, the community seem to be prepared to ignore it. I've not attempted to tell anyone what the board is thinking. Adambro (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

These images were uploaded by the photographer himself. Clearly they are meant to be under a license that is compatible with Wikinews. --SVTCobra 15:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * They aren't though are they? I'm not sure how you are in a position to know the photographer's intention in uploading these images. Adambro (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * . We are legally allowed to host them. In this case I see no reason why we should break the archive. Anonymous101  15:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Windsor Castle.jpg
Unfree image of one of Britain's major tourist attractions which lacks a fair use rationale. It is ludicrous to suggest that the fair use of such an image is valid or was valid at any time in the past and therefore this should be deleted, it should have been deleted at the time. It is impossible to write a fair use rationale to justify use of this image. Adambro (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 * Do you honestly mean to suggest an image from the official British Royal Residences website is not a, let alone , as per WN:FU? -  Amgine | t 19:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We can't (and shouldn't) use an unfree image when a free image could be feasibly found or created, for one of Britain's major tourist attractions this must clearly be the case. For an unfree image to be used it has to come under one of the fair use whitelist criteria and have a rationale explaining why a free image couldn't be found or created, in this case it wouldn't be possible to justify this. Adambro (talk) 05:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * On this we have considerable agreement. However, what you said was it had no fair use rationale, which it does. Bad choice of non-free photo? yes. Sole justification for deletion? no. Please note that any further use of the image *also* requires a fair use justification. The image could be kept for historic purposes, and not allowed to be further used. (Also note the FU policy at the time was rather newly introduced, 3-4 months earlier, and was not fully accepted by the community at the time.)
 * Where is this fair use rationale which you speak of? Adambro (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * I only support the use of non free images when a free one doesn't exist. I find it hard to believe that no one had a free image of such a major tourist attraction.  Two free imges available at the time the article was written. This is from about five images of Windsor Castle that I looked ad (of the 100s images of the castle on commons). Free alternative clearly availableAnonymous101   20:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Close discussion, I replaced it with the one from Commons, I think if we delete it, it may end up being the one that shows up anyway cause it has the same file name. It's also PD like the rest of the article conveniently. ViperSnake151 (talk) 12:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's hardly the right way to deal with this. --SVTCobra 13:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. If the nominated images is deleted and not then removed from the article it will be this image from Commons which will appear, not the one which ViperSnake151 has replaced this with. I'm not sure that there is consensus to replace unfree images which are deleted from archived articles with different free images. It is usual practice to remove the image and leave the article without. Adambro (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the replacement as I believe an action like this is not appropriate when a file is undergoig a dr. Feel ree to revert me if you disagree. Anonymous101  16:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. I don't like breaking the archive. 2. This fair use crusade is becoming more of annoyance and detriment than an improvement on Wikinews' mission. --TUFKAAP (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No one wants to change this archived articles. If you want this image to be kept then have an attempt at writing a fair use rationale explaining why an unfree image is and was appropriate rather than a free image, I suspect you will struggle. Until this image has a fair use rationale it can be speedily deleted in accordance with Criteria for speedy deletion as not complying with fair use policy which requires a rationale. Adambro (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are the only one on this crusade and the only one who has such an issue with unfree images adambro. Why don't you write some rationals? I am getting sick of the crusade, which is borderline disruption. If your goal is to list every image that is unfree with a DR and ones without a rational then write some. Because i am getting sick of sitting here arguing with you about images that you have in your head should follow Commons policy. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 12:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Were this April the first I'd be putting up my own DR nomination... Adambro. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought you must have thought it was April 1st when you blocked me recently and then ignored all questions as to your reasoning for doing so. Perhaps the intention was to irritate me in the hope that I'd go away? Adambro (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Jeez. Get over yourself. You were disruptive. You're demonstrating the sense of humour of a Vulcan, and the table manners of a Klingon. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Flechaup.jpg|20px]] trekkie --SVTCobra 15:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting for Brianmc to explain how exactly my edits can be described as disruptive, I'd ask that he comments on my talk page about this rather than continuing any discussion here. Adambro (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you operate from a different definition of "disruptive" then there is no point. Go try blanking all the Main page redesigns on Wikipedia and see how long until you get blocked there. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is hardly a difficult question to ask how my edits were disruptive to the work of the project yet you seem unable to answer. I'd also like if people could decide whether or not we are like Wikipedia, it seems that we are or aren't depending on which is convenient. Adambro (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright take this else where, maybe you need links so Brian McNeil / talk or Adambro (talk). If you dont want to take it there then thats fine, but dont carry it on here, it is WAY off topic. --Mark Talk to me 17:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've already asked that Brian take this to my talk page rather than continuing here for this reason. Adambro (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * , per . Cirt (talk) 06:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Helios 737.jpg
Unfree image lacking a fair use rationale and an appropriate tag in accordance with the fair use white list, it most certainly isn't publicity as tagged currently. There is no reason why it was necessary to use an unfree image to show the exact plane involved in the accident. I therefore propose it is deleted. Adambro (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 * This image has a copyright notice embedded at the bottom right, listing it as copyrighted by Elliott Kefalas. --SVTCobra 23:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A Greek plane spotter Adambro (talk) 12:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * This picture is over 2 years old. This crusade is getting annoying. Instead of making your point adambro, then write the rational. Maybe you don't see the reason the image of the exact plane is not important, but its clear that an exact image is important, more than a file phoho of a "similar plane." DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with the resolution. We have our own image policies and I fail to see how this is permitted and as such I can't write a fair use rationale. If you feel you can then go ahead but I can't see how a rationale can justify use of this image. Adambro (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this what you are going to say for every image you put up for deletion? Have you even attempted in the slightest to write a rational? I am going to say no. Because if you did, we would not be hving this discussion. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have taken the time to think about whether I could write a rationale, there is nothing more that I can do. Adambro (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Jason, what could be put in the rational? “A free alternative is clearly available for this image that is subject to copyright and our hosting of this is almost definitely illegal?” A cannot see any way a rational could be written. Anonymous101 (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Per DragonFire1024, this has become a most unwelcome crusade. If you can prove it is a copyvio then it will be deleted. Otherwise, leave it the fuck alone. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats not how it works. If you can prove it is not a copyvio it should be kept. Anonymous101 (talk) 06:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. I don't like breaking the archive. 2. This fair use crusade is becoming more of annoyance and detriment than an improvement on Wikinews' mission. --TUFKAAP (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * the image has a copyright tag embedded in it stating that it belongs to "Elliot Kefalas". Further, plane spotter sites such as airliners.net are very strict about copyrights, see here (I know it is from a greek version that seems not to have the image anymore). However, in this case, we can avoid "breaking the archive" by using Image:Helios Airways.jpg, which is the exact same plane, 5B-DBY, which was destroyed in the crash. So, I think it is common sense to replace and get rid of the unfree image. They are not that different. Commons had this image since one day after the article. --SVTCobra 22:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * possible copyvio as probably not publicity and I do not see how this is fair use. Anonymous101 (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * , per . Cirt (talk) 06:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:AF358 traffic cam.jpg
Unfree image lacking a rationale which isn't Crown Copyright as tagged currently nor is there an alternative fair use template to permit use of this image per the fair use whitelist. It would also have been perfectly feasible at the time of the incident for a free image to have been created or obtained. I therefore propose that this image is deleted. Adambro (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 * I believe that it is Crown Copyright. Ministry of Transportation content is Crown Copyright per this. There it states that "materials may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes" which Wikinews certainly is. While material is not "free" it is available for fair-use. I will write a fair use rationale. More about Crown Copyright in Canada. --SVTCobra 22:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, Wikipedia has had this w:Image:Loc35.jpg since 2005 under their fair use clauses. --SVTCobra 23:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The image on Wikipedia is lacking a fair use rationale and will therefore be deleted in seven days. The use of an image on Wikipedia under fair use says nothing about the appropriateness of using an unfree image here. Adambro (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It is good to see that some effort is been put in to try to resolve the concerns I have raised and I note that an attempt to provide a fair use rationale has been made. However the "Replaceable?" element of the rationale template fails to explain why it is irreplaceable. Surely when the incident was ongoing, presumably when the article was written, this wasn't the case, someone could have taken a photograph or found someone who had and get them to agree to release it under a free license. It is this issue that has prevented me from resolving this myself and writing a rationale without raising this here. This image at the time of my nomination had been tagged as missing a rationale since 16 May 2007. It seems obvious therefore that unless images are nominated for deletion then no one can be bothered to try to sort these things out. We have a reasonable number of contributors who feel that the use of unfree images is vital. I have done and will continue to add rationales where I can but I can't be expected to be able to do in all circumstances. I'd ask that they spend time attempting to resolve issues such as missing fair use rationales before I end up nominating them for deletion and then getting moaned at for doing so. According to our templates, images without fair use rationales can be speedily deleted but clearly this isn't happening. Despite how much people might not like it, do we need to be stricter about enforcing this to try to encourage more contributors to consider image problems? Adambro (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the replacability standard, the image remains legal to use for reporting the news, especially in a non-commercial form of news. The government that owns the image has, as noted, said "materials may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes" which our use certainly is. Since this image was from before the resolution you oft quote was written, and the rationale for its use written even later, the image has become irreplacable. The idea behind the foundation resolution was to protect against lawsuits for copyright infringement. There is not even a hint of anything regarding this image that is going to invoke a lawsuit, considering the explicit statement of the source. Even if there was, it would surely fail. I fail to see what your stake in this is, other than being a rules lawyer. Pursuing this particular image does not protect the foundation and it does not enhance Wikinews. Wikinews absolutely has images that are problems. Image:Helios 737.jpg is one such image, one which I feel ought be removed (nomination is directly above). I think that I have voted according to what is in the best interest of Wikinews and in accordance with the resolution. While other people may have voted with kneejerk "keep" votes, I think I have given fair assesments. This particular image remains fair to use, whether it was replacable at the time or not. --SVTCobra 22:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * again from 2005. At the time the resolution did not exist. It is impossible for anyone to go back in time and create a free image. I am sure if the resolution had existed back then, it would be fair to say make a free image. But it didn't exist and its not fair to have to subject a photo that old to a very new rule. Again instead of crusading, write a rational. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Again nothing to do with the resolution. Also, stop saying that it wouldn't be possible for someone to go back in time and create a free image, clearly this is nonsense and I've never suggested this. Again I feel unable to write an appropriate fair use rationale to justify use of this image and therefore would invite you to do so if you think it is possible. Adambro (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You expect someone to create a free image when they didn't have to or are required to do so. You cannot expect that to be the case today. It is unfair and ridiculous to even make that suggestion. Unable to write a rational or unwilling? Have you even tried? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No I don't expect someone to create a free image but they certainly aren't required to use an unfree one but if it is questionable to use an image under fair use and there isn't a free one available then that means no image used in the article. I've commented regarding writing a rationale above. Adambro (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Its only questionable because there is no rational. Other than that this DR is ridiculous. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * fair use rationale has now been written. But we probably need to update our EDP so that these issues do not keep reappearing. --SVTCobra 23:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an example where a rationale was written, so why the #$%& was it nominated when that was possible? --Brian McNeil / talk 13:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:FAcopy
I do not understand this template. I thought you couldn't copyright fact, and it's poorly written, and I don't get its point... ViperSnake151 (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * . In the context of the one template in which it is used the notice is questionable, I don't consider football scores to be copyrightable. If this was used for FA images then it would also be questionable since it doesn't address how the use falls within the fair use white list criteria. Adambro (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Football Association are a bunch of zealots when it comes to slapping copyright and trade marks on anything that they see. One of the aspects of this is trying to copyright presentation of league tables by ranking. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Vlaams Belang election brochure.png, Image:Vb caroon 3.png, Image:Vb cartoon 1.png
Speedy deleted by Anonymous101 following my nomination that this is a unfree image unused beyond a talk page archive. Brought here as restored by Brianmc with the reason "unused, but of historical interest and for possible use in future articles".

Also Image:Vb caroon 3.png, speedy deleted by SVTCobra following my nomination, same reason as previous. Also Image:Vb cartoon 1.png as previous.

Brought here since the speedy delete was contested, proposed for deletion for the same reasons. Unfree images are to be used in limited circumstances only, not because they have a historial interest and not because they might be used in an unknown future article. We can't justify having unfree lingering about only used on user talk page articles because sometime, somewhere in the future someone might just find it useful. Adambro (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments
These images were all candidates for use on Municipal elections in Belgium: Flemish Interest halted in Antwerp but advancing elsewhere. I no longer have the brochure, but could re-scan the others were they required for a future article. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just keep it saved on your computer then surely? Adambro (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, download to your own computer. --SVTCobra 21:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm with Linus Torvalds on this one, "upload to a server and let the world mirror it". --Brian McNeil / talk 22:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough, but there are plenty of places like Flickr where you can do that. --SVTCobra 22:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * I cannot imagine a future article about the Belgian municipal elections, 2006. The images are not used and are improperly tagged as logos. --SVTCobra 21:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, theres not a major reason to have this. rootology (T ) 02:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair use image unused in main namespace. Anonymous101  05:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Wikimedia without text.png
Another WMF project logo like those below but a slightly different set of circumstances so I'm listing this separately. I'd originally nominated this for speedy deletion but having discussed this a little bit with Brianmc on IRC he's expressed a slight concern about deleting this. This image image is unused and redundant to images on Commons so I propose it is deleted. Brian suggest that this might be used somewhere which doesn't appear in the links list such as in a special page but I'd be reasonably confident that this isn't the case as I can't think of anywhere where it might be. From the comments on the image page it looks like at one time this was used on the main page but that instance has long been replaced with a copy on Commons. Adambro (talk) 16:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My key concern is that enunciated in the below DR. What if, on some page or other, these are referenced by a full URL (http://....). I am sure that would not show up in "what links here". --Brian McNeil / talk 15:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * Replace with Image:Wikimedia-logo.svg. There are no material changes, though it has been converted from png to svg. (I guess that means we delete the local copy, but please update the articles so they don't have broken images) --SVTCobra 23:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

User:BruceKinnaird/Block log of wheels
I don't understand the point of this. Why is it here, and what's it for?? It's an odd page to say the least. --Whitealbert (talk) 14:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Siachenmedal.jpg
Image isn't a logo, hasn't got any details of its source, and lacks a fair use rationale. Adambro (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * based on the lack of sourcing and possibly copyvio. rootology (T ) 19:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * the source seems to be this which as being on the website of Winthrop University is copyrighted by the university as per . Using a medal to illustrate Indo-Pakistan talks on Siachen end in deadlock is not particularly useful. A map would have been better. --SVTCobra 19:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Portal article Quaker
I don't think that this template was ever used. The only thing that links to it is a talk page. --SVTCobra 18:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * as it doesn't seem useful. Adambro (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * , no major activity since creation. Nakon (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * per own nom. --SVTCobra 23:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * rootology (T ) 01:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * , as it was originally a template for a fair use image. --  Zanimum (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Coca short
While probably well intentioned, there has been no effort to use or update this template since its creation on January 28, 2006. It seems to be an attempt to cover Football League One, the third rung in English football. Since it was not used, I won't buy a historical argument for keeping. --SVTCobra 22:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * as my own nom. --SVTCobra 22:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * per nom as unused, probably not really a historical interest for pages like this anyway. Adambro (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * per nom Anonymous101  14:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Unused, unlikely to be used for some years yet. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Isolated native tribe discovered in Brazil
The collaboration notes indicate that whomever created the article did so by accident. I believe it to be a duplicate as well. --74.13.29.177 15:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * It is not a duplicate as the other one was deleted. Anonymous101  15:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Photographs Published of Isolated Native Tribe in Brazil was the duplicate; it has since been deleted.

Image:Jugal-1.jpg
Image is tagged with the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license but the source website, whilst stating that "Except where otherwise specified, all the content of this weblog is available for reuse under the terms of Creative Commons license", it doesn't actually say which Creative Commons license of which there are a number with varying licensing conditions. I can't see anyway on the source website to contact those responsible for the site so aren't able to ask them to clarify this. Therefore, as this currently has an unknown license it should be deleted. Adambro (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment

 * The CC Attribution is the base CC license, and is the assumed license unless one of the optional protocols is selected. -  Amgine | t 13:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you provide evidence of that? Anonymous101  13:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. For example, I have read the code, compared it with some other licenses, and found only additional segments. But if you're willing to trust Wikipedia's article it also summarizes all licenses (although they fail to note in the summaries that all licenses require attribution.)
 * I'm not really convinced that any of that supports the suggestion that simply mentioning CC means CC-BY. Adambro (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Many of the licenses, notably all the original licenses, grant certain "baseline rights",[1] such as the right to distribute the copyrighted work without changes, at no charge. Some of the newer licenses do not grant these rights.
 * That's from the opening paragraph of the Wikipedia article. As a worst-case that's CC-BY-ND (or CC-ND if there is such a beast).
 * Isn't CC-BY-ND one of the classes of license WN:FU should cover? The goal is to spread the "educational content" the site has, i.e. news articles. It is most definitely more the goal of an open encyclopedia to offer material that can be reused in more imaginative ways than as an illustration of the "snapshot" that a news article is. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If we do consider it to be CC-BY-ND then that makes it unfree for our purposes and as such needs to be tagged with a fair use template, fall within one of the fair use whitelist criteria, and have a fair use rationale which may or may not be appropriate. I think the easiest thing would be to get the owner of the blog to clarify this situation but I haven't been able to find any contact details. Perhaps other might have more luck? Adambro (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly how much more complicated than "CC-BY-ND image, timely and illustrates subject of article where no substitute can be found in reasonable timeframe." do we need to get? --Brian McNeil / talk 22:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * . Added a fair-use rationale. Even with the concerns over the cc licensing, (though clearly if there was any sort of cc free-use license we can assume that the intention of the owner was that the image could be used on other sites in this particular manner) the image itself is clearly fair use in this article. Cirt (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The source itself states that "The photograph by Malayalam News Service (M N S)". It is not fair-use to use an image that is copyrighted by another news agency. "The Socialist" blog does not have rights to this image. You can see their crediting the image to MNS at this page. --SVTCobra 23:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Copyright infringement. --+Deprifry+ 08:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * per . Cirt (talk) 08:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Mozilla hopes to set world record with Firefox
Doesn't seem to be news. Se article talk page for more info.

Votes

 * Could be moved to prepared if there is a likelihood of them setting a record. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hype -- serves only to promote Firefox (much as I love Firefox 3, this isn't newsworthy). B2xiao (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * as only when a record is broken would I consider this newsworthy. Adambro (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * , seems to be a press release. If it does break the record it would be worth revisiting. Nakon (talk) 03:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Could have been left for WN:PROD as no attempt to publish was made. Nominator: please sign your DR nominations. --SVTCobra 21:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:5Y-KYAPlane.jpg
Grant of licence images are no longer allowed nor were they permitted at the time of upload per the Foundation resolution, as such this image should be deleted. The deletion of this image will not be overly detrimental to our readers understanding of the related articles but it will help to ensure that we minimise our use of material which cannot be reused by others in keeping with our goals. There are other grant of licence images which should in my opinion should also be deleted but appreciating the sensitive issues here I nominate this image alone for the community to consider in isolation at this stage. Adambro (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 * What's the difference between an OTRS and a GOL? Again, images here are not meant to be freely used by others. Only the text is CC-BY-2.5. See the bottom of each and every page: "Copyright terms on images may vary, please check individual image pages prior to duplication." --SVTCobra 19:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A grant of license is permission for us and us alone to use an image, this is no longer allowed. There isn't such thing as "an OTRS". OTRS is used to manage the answering by volunteers of emails sent to various Wikimedia Foundation email addresses. One use of the system is to store confirmations of permissions to release content under an acceptable free licence which have been received and then a link to the ticket is added to the relevant image page so that this can be verified as necessary.


 * Images here should and must be available for use by others as much as possible. Whilst not necessarily under CC-BY-2.5, they should be available under an acceptable free licence or fall within one of the fair use white list criteria and have an appropriate rationale. Adambro (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If Markie was able to obtain a GOL for this image, perhaps he can also get a permission under an acceptable free licence and have it filed in the OTRS system, in which case it could be moved to Commons. --SVTCobra 21:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be delighted if that would be possible but I think it is unlikely if Markie wasn't able to get such permission at the time. Adambro (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ive emailed the author again --Mark Talk to me 21:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The WMF Board specifically approved the en.Wikinews image policies, include grants of license. Wikinews was given specific dispensation to use non-free images. At this time file upload was first allowed on en.wikinews. Wikinews policy still allows non-free images, with a preference but not a requirement for free media. Licensure is simply not a basis for image deletion on en.Wikinews, unless you also plan on destroying the archive value of Wikinews. -  Amgine | t 03:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that anything originally accepted by the Board overrules the later resolution on image licensing. Just as we have to make changes in response to the resolution, other projects with image policies with which the Board was previously happy with have done so. Uploads must comply with the policies at the time of upload and continue to do so. It is very questionable to try to suggest that we can use our archiving policy as an excuse to continue to use images outside of policy. For a start it is ridiculous to suggest that we only have a limited duration of time to find image licensing issues before they disappearing into the archives with the issues never to be resolved. Archiving is intended to prevent stories from being changed to ensure they reflect what was known at the time, not to keep articles appearing exactly as they did when they were written. I'd suggest that people need to remember we're not a printed newspaper that cannot revisit issues when they emerge nor can they do anything to remove images from articles where it becomes apparent they shouldn't be using them. We are a website and like other websites there is nothing to stop us changing pages so we can't defend not doing so where issues are highlighted. This certainly isn't destroying the archives, it is maintaining their integrity. Adambro (talk) 06:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Equally, I assume you realize I'm not trying to convince you. The reality of the situation is there is no purpose for Wikinews to host *any* images except those which are not able to be hosted on Commons: non-freely licensed images. One half of Wikinews's mission is to serve as a permanent archive of events as they were known and perceived at the time. By deleting images which were used to illustrate articles in the past you are destroying that element of Wikinews, and it's value as a reference archive for Wikipedia. You may, of course, have a rather different personal view of Wikinews. -  Amgine | t 14:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I can assure you that we share the same desire for maintaining archived articles. Where I disagree is with your opinion that images should be considered to be part of an article for archiving purposes. Whilst a good image can really make an article, my understanding of the archiving policy is that this is to ensure articles reflect what was known at the time and with this in mind I suggest that there will be very few instances where removing an image would cause an article to have a different slant. Adambro (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * Speedy delete - non-free image with no rationale. ViperSnake151 (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This was given to us. And I am not going to explain my stance on stuff like this...again. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Forget "us", we should be thinking about the group of people that are important here, our readers and those that wish to reuse our content. Using unfree images hampers this and goes against what we are trying to achieve and, as I've noted, this image was uploaded after the point at which the Foundation resolution came into force and as such is unquestionably against the rules under which we must work. Adambro (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I will not forget "us." We go and went out of our way to get these images. The person who allowed us to use it, could have said no. And might normally charge media agencies a pretty dollar to use their work. I disagree in this case because it is a specific image. It is the plane in question that crashed. It adds everything to the story, which is also quite old. If you like, I can mark it as fair use and even write a rational. The image shows what once was, and I don't think anyone can travel back in time to take another picture. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * - Image is used in a completely appropriate manner and credited to the individual as requested in both articles in which it appears. Agree with .  Cirt (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you be able to provide a compelling reason why we should be ignoring the Foundation resolution which doesn't allow GOL now nor at the time of upload? Adambro (talk)
 * Well also makes a compelling case above.  Cirt (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure exactly which of Amgine's comments addresses this issue. Adambro (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And that is where we respectfully disagree. Cirt (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * - because it is unbelievably anal to censor an image on a year old news story that nobody gives a crap about any more. -Edbrown05 (talk) 10:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well firstly to delete this image cannot be described by any measure as censoring. Secondly, if this is an "old news story that nobody gives a crap about any more" then surely that would support the deletion of the image with it being against policy. Adambro (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As a news organisation we need gol images. Its not like its illegal for us too host it. I think we should allow non free images like this . Adambro :"we should be thinking about the group of people that are important here, our readers and those that wish to reuse our content.". OUr readers don't care about the copyright status of images and very few/none of our mirrors reuse images found on Wikinews. Anonymous101   11:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't possibly agree that we need GOL images, why do we? As I keep stating, we aren't a news site using a Wiki, we are trying to create a free news source that anyone can reuse and limiting our use of images which can't be reused should be quite high up our priority list. Our images are divided into two distinct categories, either free or unfree. Since this image isn't free it means our use has to fall within our fair use whitelist and I'd very much suggest that isn't the case here so it should be deleted. There isn't a gray area of GOL images anymore and this wasn't permitted at the time of upload either. Adambro (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree.I think our purpose is to be news website with an archive showing the old news events. I do not think that our mirrors care. Obviously, free images are strongly preferred but I think (legally hosted) non  free images should be allowed if the add substantially to the article, like this one does. Anonymous101   17:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really consider that this image adds "substantially to the article". Certainly not enough to use it in violation of policy. Adambro (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is, to my knowledge, the ONLY image of the EXACT plane that crashed. And the fact the the person who has this image, agreed for Wikinews to use it, as opposed to CNN or the AP, makes it even more of a substantial image. The fact that he is letting us use it for free is even more considerate as well. Not to mention, I think it is a great honor for Wikinews to be a host for exclusive material (exclusive in terms of news). DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This is one of a number of examples where overzealous application of the foundation resolution is a serious detriment to the project. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless Markie is able to document the GOL or get a permission that can be filed with OTRS, I think we will need to delete this excellent image. --SVTCobra 23:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really..it can be tagged fair use and a rational written. There is no reason that it should be deleted. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see why you say that, but in any case it cannot be a high-resolution version as is currently the case. --SVTCobra 23:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If an appropriate fair use rationale can be written to allow this to be used under fair use then that would be great but I'd note that at this point the grant of license no longer has any influence on whether we can use it as fair use. I do however doubt that a fair use rationale could justify why we need to use an unfree image of the exact plane rather than simply a file photo from Commons showing the type of plane. I don't think we'd consider using an unfree image of the exact plane involved in a crash in other circumstances so don't see why we should here just because we have this GOL image to deal with. Adambro (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? You would think a "file" photo of a plane that is some random plane similar to this one would be better just because its free? Now that is really ridiculous. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No it isn't ridiculous, I am most definitely serious. I fail to see any reason why it is essential that we use an unfree image showing the exact aircraft at the expense of trying to limit our use of unfree images when it would be quite possible that an image of [the same Added to clarify after DragonFire1024's comment below ] model aircraft would be just about as useful to our readers. Adambro (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I seriously cannot believe you said that adambro. Sorry, but I am not in the business or misleading readers with pictures of model planes. Maybe you want to do that kind of stuff, but I will not be a part of it. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion, I didn't mean we should use a photo of a model aircraft, rather the same model of aircraft. I'd have hoped the mistake in what I wrote would have been fairly obvious though. Adambro (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't really tell the difference between this and 5Y-KYZ, which is on Commons. However, it is more honest to use an image of the actual plane than one of the others from the same airline. I can't be bothered digging into the history of the GOL template to see how we got that when we're - allegedly - never supposed to have that class of image. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 5Y-KYZ is a photo of a Boeing 777 rather than a 737. I'm not sure how it would, by implication of your comment, be dishonest to use a different free photo unless we'd pretend it was the same one which we clearly wouldn't. Adambro (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Plane spotter! --Brian McNeil / talk 17:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:New Zealand R. Driver Licence.JPG
Image of a New Zealand driving license belonging to Brian. Tagged as cc-by-2.5 but he's specified that he doesn't want it uploading to Commons, presumably due to concerns about privacy which is probably understandable considering it has his full name, photograph, and signature. However, cc-by-2.5 doesn't allow for additional restrictions and so if Brian isn't happy with it being on Commons then it shouldn't have been uploaded here in the first place. I'm therefore suggesting that we delete it because of these concerns. I don't think the deletion would in any way impact on a readers experience of the article it is used in, Record low amount of organs donated in New Zealand. I'll notify Brian of this nomination to get his input on this. Adambro (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * per nom, 's argument makes sense here, re: the conflicting cc tag and yet the note that the image is not to be cc. Would be interested of course in the uploader's comment on this.  Cirt (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks adambro. I had forgotten about this - yes, your reasoning is sound. Thanks for bringing this up. I am happy for it to be deleted Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 18:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * per personality rights (or whatever). But could we just blank out the personal identifiers and still use it as an image for the article? That is, upload a new version that obscures name, address, and photo. --SVTCobra 23:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * - derivative work. ViperSnake151 (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:AntiWarrallyPortland2006.jpg, Image:AntiWarrally2Portland2006.jpg, Image:Perth IRAQ No War rally2006.jpg
These three images were uploaded from Indymedia by Elliot K back in March 2006. They are all identified as being available under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license but it is unclear looking at the source provided that this is the case. Elliot K hasn't been active since January 2007. In July 2007 I attempted to clarify the licensing situation and was informed by someone from Indymedia that material contributed to the site "are free for non-profit re-use" and looking at the main page of indymedia.org it states, "All content is free for reprint and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere, for non-commercial use, unless otherwise noted by author." Since both of these statements mean such content is not free in our sense and since it is not stated on either of the exact source pages from the website that the images are released under CC-BY-2.5 I suggest we should delete these three images. Adambro (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments
Isn't all of Indymedia's content copyleft? If so, we can use it. Please see Independent Media Center, last paragraph. Perhaps the images need to be updated for the correct licenses, but I expect that we can keep them. --SVTCobra 23:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The images aren't released under an acceptable license since they specifically state that material is only available for non-commercial use. Copyleft is a broad term which doesn't necessarily mean that we can use it. Adambro (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Images here are not CC-BY-2.5 (obviously as we have fair use images). Also, just see at the bottom of everypage: "Copyright terms on images may vary, please check individual image pages prior to duplication."
 * My point is that these images are free enough to be used here as we are non-commercial. --SVTCobra 19:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * We might be non-commercial but to use such images goes completely against our core aim of creating content that anyone can reuse. Images here either have to come under one of the fair use whitelist criteria or be be available under an acceptable free license which must permit commercial use. This image is neither and so should be deleted. Adambro (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Essentially, it sounds like you are saying if it was less free (fair-use) we could use it, or if it was more free (PD or GDFL or whatever) we could also use it. But because it is in between, we can't use it. It seems counterintuitive. --SVTCobra 21:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, that isn't what I am saying although I appreciate it might have been unclear. There is no middle ground for our purposes, images are either free or they aren't. In this case because they isn't an explicit statement that they are available under an accepted license then they are unfree therefore can only be used under fair use. However, in this particular circumstances I don't consider there to be reasonable justification for using these unfree images with a fair use rationale. Adambro (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, it would make sense for Wikinews to modify its Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP), so that we could use such images. Per foundation policy, we are allowed to create an EDP that allows us to have "a project-specific policy, in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed (if any), that recognizes the limitations of copyright law (including case law) as applicable to the project, and permits the upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the context of the project, regardless of their licensing status."
 * It is certainly legal for us to use copyleft and cc-by-nd and cc-by-nc-nd images. All we would have to do is to include them in our EDP, the current version of which can be found at WN:EDP. Thoughts? --SVTCobra 21:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * To allow cc-by-nd and cc-by-nc-nd images would be against the whole idea of what we are trying to achieve, news that anyone can reuse. As nice as it is in some situations to include images this won't always be possible. I'd also note that copyleft isn't a license in itself rather a term used to describe a whole range of licenses which would be considered to be more free than otherwise allowed. Adambro (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you need to re-read Mission statement. What we are trying to achieve is not the same as Commons or even Wikipedia. We are not here to create/provide material that can be exploited freely-and-uncredited by anyone. That is why we use the CC-BY-2.5 license. We are here to provide the news. --SVTCobra 22:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * We are here to provide news that can be reused by anyone under the terms of the CC-BY-2.5 licence. As part of this we should and must limit our use of images which can't be reused also. A major part of what we are trying to achieve is common to other Wikimedia Foundation projects. We are not simply a news site using a Wiki. We have the rather unique aim of creating content that people can reuse just like the other WMF projects. Adambro (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That is certainly a valid way of intrepreting it. But then, IMO, we shouldn't even allow fair use of any kind. However, I think it would leave us at a competitive disadvantage. Other news sources use fair-use and semi-free images all the time. --SVTCobra 22:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Other large WMF projects seem to manage without fair use so it isn't too extreme to suggest that we could as well. On your second point, it may well put us at a disadvantage compared to other news organisations to not have images for all of our stories but that is a simple consequence of what we are trying to achieve and does in some respects give us a unique selling point in terms of attracting people to the project. It would be perfectly possible to create a more conventional news website whilst still using a Wiki format but that our raison d'être is much more than creating a news website utilising the MediaWiki software. Adambro (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I reiterate my previous comments: Wikinews has a fair use policy. It was specifically approved by the WMF Board. At that time - and not before - Wikinews was first allowed upload privileges. Clearly a recognition that Wikinews will be hosting non-free content which could not otherwise be hosted on Commons. -  Amgine | t 03:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've tried to address these points in the above DR. Adambro (talk) 11:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * per nom Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Changing to keep per some of the above discussion, particularly some cogent points made by . Cirt (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But is isn't released under an acceptable free licence. What do you intend to tag it with because there is no evidence to support the current licence? Adambro (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My comment stands on its own. Sometimes every single response on this WN:DR page does not necessitate a follow up back and forth response, and another, and another, and so on. This is getting quite tiresome. Cirt (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But we will need to update our EDP aka WN:FU and add appropriate notices on the images (if kept). --SVTCobra 23:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What changes to our EDP would you suggest could allow us to use these images? They aren't available under an acceptable free license nor would they qualify as fair use since it would be perfectly feasible for someone to have created or got someone to release an image under an acceptable license. My question would be now that if we seem to allow pretty much any images, what don't we allow? Adambro (talk) 23:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In my view, it is really quite simple. During this process we would modify our EDP to allow images that are under these licenses. Then we write templates that we can attach to these images, which fully and in detail explain their license status. And then we are done. Everybody ought to be happy with that (again imho). --SVTCobra 00:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There are too problems with that. Firstly, that would create a difference between our interpretation of free content and that of all the other Wikimedia Foundation projects. I think this is asking for confusion. Secondly, with regards to this specific image, since there is no evidence to support the current licensing on the talk page how could this be retained by the method you propose? Adambro (talk) 10:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe I should have words with someone on the board about this. I think it would also make a good question for the board candidates. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I a question regarding images like this on the Board candidates question page yesterday. Anonymous101  09:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As a news organisation we need gol images. Its not like its illegal for us too host it. I think we should allow non free images like this . Anonymous101  13:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Eurovision
Uncompleted portal that's only even relevant once a year. Perhaps one day we will have coverage for every little event connected year round, and will need this portal, but not now. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * per nom. Cirt (talk) 13:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * per nom. Adambro (talk) 13:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is silly to have a portal on. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * even poorly done stealing stuff from the football portal. I'd support speedy. --SVTCobra 23:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Deleted. Consensus is pretty clear, four days is sufficient. Daniel (talk) 02:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Union76.jpg
This image has been lacking details of its source for a long period of time now. The uploader has previously been asked to provide these details but has failed to do so. I've spent time trying to search the website of the organisation quoted for the image but with no success. Since as we currently stand we have no way of verifying the image is actually freely available we should deleted it. Adambro (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I found the image in this BBC article which credits it as an AFP image. We obviously cannot host it here, gross copyright violation. --SVTCobra 13:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * , per nom, ample time and notice has already been given. Cirt (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, hopeless task to track this down it seems. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like a non-free file photo and lacks source. But did you check with uploader, Rfc1394? He was active as recently as April. --SVTCobra 23:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Flame retardent mobile/Administrators
I don't see what purpose this serves if any. There might have been an idea behind it at one time, but I am sure it is lost. --SVTCobra 04:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess I need to include Flame retardent mobile/Mrmiscellanious and Flame retardent mobile/Neutralizer. Please vote on all three. If you must make distinctions, make it clear for the closing Admin. Thanks, --SVTCobra 04:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments
Admisn can see Special:Undelete/Wikinews:Flame_retardent_mobile for info on what this somewhat misguided idea was. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * per own nom. --SVTCobra 04:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * all per nom, not sure what purpose they serve/served. Cirt (talk) 05:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Umm, I believe it was some form of forced dispute resolution (I should know, I created it). Basically have everything everyone was accusing each other of out in the open to enable rational discussion (geuss how well that worked?). Bawolff ☺☻ 06:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This was previously deleted through WN:DR (subpages were missed). Therefor this could potentially be speedied. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree that these could all be speedied, if no one objects. Cirt (talk) 06:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * While considering part of it has already been speedied by Ryan524 ~2 years ago (and the other part nominated through dr by Cspurrier). Bawolff ☺☻ 06:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation receives copyright infringement claim from Mormon Church
I can't believe that someone has finally gone and done it. This really is quite appalling and very unprofessional. The matter of the WMF being asked to remove a link to the illegal material is an internal, legal issue, and not something to write an article about. We simply should not write an article about every such issue. Has information about this being officially released publicly? I'm well aware this has been discussed on Wiki and elsewhere but that doesn't mean we can or should make it known to a wider audience. It is a simple consequence of the Wiki that anything that is discussed is public but going from that to writing an article is a reasonable step.

Maybe I missed the announcement but details of OTRS tickets are required to be kept confidential as much as possible. There has long been concern about writing WMF related articles and this is a brilliant example of what to avoid. The message we are sending is that any legal discussions with the WMF will be made public and this is very wrong. Threatening to write an article about such discussions as Brianmc, who made public his reply to the OTRS ticket on IRC, effectively did in suggesting that the actions of the Church have made it newsworthy.

There is a line here on what we should and shouldn't be writing about and that well and truly has been crossed. People seem to have foolishly got caught up in what appears to be some excitement that the original article has had the impact it has. This really does have to be deleted.
 * You have not been elected as site censor. This legal threat was brought to the attention of the entire community, there is nothing secret about it; it could not be otherwise. The article is well written, well sourced, and has already been the subject of outside coverage. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't recall having to be "elected as site censor" to raise concerns about articles. I'd again suggest that this article is completely inappropriate and is based upon confidential legal discussion which shouldn't have been revealed for the sake of some desire to have an interesting story. Whether this is newsworthy or not is only part of this issue. This deletion request has been speedily closed out of convenience, people don't want to have to discuss these issues and risk our readers seeing the deletion notice. I'm afraid this just doesn't wash with me. Ultimately it is in our readers interests that we debate and discuss these things. It is a shame that getting an article mentioned on Slashdot or the desire for this kind of attention has clouded the judgements of some users as to, not necessarily what is newsworthy, but what is appropriate to for us to be reporting on. Adambro (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't be a pedant. This was closed because it is ridiculous, and you still have not taken action on the comment about accusations about me. I'm taking this to WN:DISPUTE. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I'm sorry I haven't had the chance to address some of the previous comments, I've just driven a few hundred miles or so. Adambro (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, now I've finally had chance to read back some of the earlier comments here I'm prepared to clarify the comments I made in the nomination. I stand by the comments I made in the middle paragraph which Daniel and Brianmc appeared to be concerned about. I would apologise if any of this has been interpreted as a suggestion that Brian was somehow involved in the revealing of confidential information. That is certainly not my position. I do however feel that the contents of the OTRS ticket must have been revealed and base this contents of the initial revision of the article by Cirt. For example, how did Cirt know that "The infringement claim was sent by Berne S. Broadbent". As far as I'm aware this hasn't been made public anywhere else and as such it appears obvious that Cirt must have got this information from someone with OTRS access. I have no interest in make accusations about who this was, merely that this has happened and I'm not happy with this. It is unfortunate that my comments have been misinterpreted as accusing Brian of revealing confidential OTRS information. Adambro (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * , perhaps you did not see this comment by ? Cirt (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And my clarifying response. Cirt (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well then, so I was right, the OTRS ticket was released and information from it was used in this article. Adambro (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The only information from that document that was used in this article was the name of the WMF designated agent, the date on the letter, the fact that it is not a DMCA letter (or at least DMCA is not stated in the letter), but instead utilizes the wording "copyright infringement", and the name of the sender of the letter and his official title. Cirt (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nominator. Adambro (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I STRONGLY OPPOSE This nomination. I move for it to be withdrawn or speedily closed. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * - This is indeed an internal affair; I don't think it needs to be published in a Wikinews article. Stimpy (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * User has five contributions here across all namespaces. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * For more info on that, see Special:Contributions/Stimpy. Cirt (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Adam, as you should know being an OTRS volunteer yourself, it is extremely bad form to go about accusing another OTRS volunteer of "misuse"/"abuse"/etc. in a venue such as this, as such issues should be dealt with on the mailing list and in conjunction with the OTRS administrators and Communications Committee. I suggest you redact that part of your deletion nomination immediately, and/or I implore anyone reading the nomination to disregard such comments as unproven, ill-founded and irrelevant to the outcome of this discussion. Daniel (talk) 13:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify exactly which point you suggest I should be retracting? Adambro (talk) 13:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The whole middle paragraph. It adds nothing to the first paragraph in terms of the rationale for deletion request and seems entirely inappropriate for this medium. Daniel (talk) 13:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no legitimate grounds for removal.--Ryan524 (talk) 13:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * per . (I was the article creator and primary contributor). Cirt (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Coverage of threats that potentially infringe our right to free reporting is not only permissible, but essential. --+Deprifry+ 14:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * per my comments on the talk page of the article. Thanks for reopening it, Adambro. Anonymous101  18:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This Deletion Request discussion was closed with Speedy keep by, and that action was supported by a second administrator (that did not previously comment in the DR discussion), . Cirt (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is newsworthy and very important that are readers are aware of the attempt--Cspurrier (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is newsworthy. It is not harming anyone, it is reporting the facts, which is what we are here to do. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 19:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have hoped it would be clear that I've not nominated for deletion on the ground that this is not newsworthy but I'm sorry if this wasn't. My position is that this is an internal legal issue which we shouldn't be jumping to write an article about and risk making the situation any worse. I, and I understand others, had raised concerns about any suggestion that an article would result from this and this article was written and published before I'd noticed leaving here the appropriate place left to suggest it should be deleted.


 * The other issue here is that this article seems to be be based upon the confidential contents of an OTRS ticket, the information contain in which as far as I'm aware has not been made public. Of course it was, and had to be, public that the Church had made their request but details seemed to have emerged via this article that go beyond this. My concern here is that the article is based upon this information. Adambro (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In which case, DR is not the appropriate venue to discuss these issues. We have the Collaboration tab for a reason. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 19:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the article should be deleted and therefore brought it up in this, the most appropriate venue. Adambro (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * -- I had initially raised the idea of doing an article on this subject matter on May 6, .  agreed with the idea, and  commented in the same thread with no objections raised. The only individual that had raised any objection was, . Cirt (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not pervy to the contents of the OTRS ticket to be able to tell if it was use, but I trust the judgement of the editors of this article is good enough to know what is and is not ok.--Ryan524 (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Every few days Google receive DMCA notices. We don' tpublish articles on them. Anonymous101  19:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Are any of them this notable?--Ryan524 (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, and neither is this Anonymous101  19:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because Google doesn't write about it doesn't mean its not news. We chose to write about it and that's Google's choice also. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * DF, you missed A101's point ... which, I believe, is that why doesn't Wikinews write about other copyright notices given to other organizations. --SVTCobra 20:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * --Mark Talk to me 19:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * . An important measure of any organization's journalistic integrity is whether it reports honestly about newsworthy adverse events that affect itself.  This doesn't mean stooping to tabloid journalism; what it does mean is that we measure this by objective standards: contributory copyright infringement is a new and largely untested area of law, which makes it potentially newsworthy.  A formal copyright infringement claim from the Mormon Church is nontrivial.  Suppose for a moment they had made the claim against YouTube instead of against WMF would your vote be any different?  It shouldn't be. Durova (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * - Here are some recent sources that are of interest:
 * The Digg link to this one is on the front page of Digg.com, right now . Cirt (talk) 07:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * All of these above-listed sources either directly link to the Wikinews article, use it as a source, or some combination thereof. Cirt (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably the most shocking deletion review I've seen in my entire stint at Wikinews. Durova is right in this regard, and Sue Gardner has let her own thoughts about such situations known on the mailing list. TheCustomOfLife (talk) 07:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The Digg link to this one is on the front page of Digg.com, right now . Cirt (talk) 07:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * All of these above-listed sources either directly link to the Wikinews article, use it as a source, or some combination thereof. Cirt (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably the most shocking deletion review I've seen in my entire stint at Wikinews. Durova is right in this regard, and Sue Gardner has let her own thoughts about such situations known on the mailing list. TheCustomOfLife (talk) 07:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The Digg link to this one is on the front page of Digg.com, right now . Cirt (talk) 07:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * All of these above-listed sources either directly link to the Wikinews article, use it as a source, or some combination thereof. Cirt (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably the most shocking deletion review I've seen in my entire stint at Wikinews. Durova is right in this regard, and Sue Gardner has let her own thoughts about such situations known on the mailing list. TheCustomOfLife (talk) 07:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The Digg link to this one is on the front page of Digg.com, right now . Cirt (talk) 07:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * All of these above-listed sources either directly link to the Wikinews article, use it as a source, or some combination thereof. Cirt (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably the most shocking deletion review I've seen in my entire stint at Wikinews. Durova is right in this regard, and Sue Gardner has let her own thoughts about such situations known on the mailing list. TheCustomOfLife (talk) 07:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably the most shocking deletion review I've seen in my entire stint at Wikinews. Durova is right in this regard, and Sue Gardner has let her own thoughts about such situations known on the mailing list. TheCustomOfLife (talk) 07:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Galatasaray
Once upon a time there will be a Wikinews that provides full sports coverages and all football teams will have their own categories. Sadly, that day is not yet upon us and this cat should be eliminated for simplification reasons. I emptied the cat, but Galatasaray clinch 17th Turkish title was formerly in the cat, narrow as it may be. --SVTCobra 00:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * - my own nom. --SVTCobra 00:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * per nom, although I would argue that clearing out the cat should only be done by the closing admin if the cat is deleted. However, I won't undo since that's wasting time as this likely won't survive DR. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as clearing out the cat, I removed it from the sole article before it was published, so I don't really think it was bad form. --SVTCobra 21:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Copy of handbook for leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints obtained by Wikinews
The article is not newsworthy. The LDS Church isn't like Scientology. Obtaining a handbook for their leaders is not likely to reveal anything scandalous. --70.49.29.96 21:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC). Note: If you have registered an account at Wikinews for the sole purpose of attempting to sway a deletion request, any vote and comment within the voting section will be struck and disregarded. Votes on this page are the purview of established contributors who have a demonstrated record of understanding site policy. If we have come to a consensus that Anonymous IPs and new users to Wikinews that vote at Deletion Requests can have their votes stricken - are they still allowed to start the nomination/deletion process here at the Deletion requests page? Cirt - (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: -- Per the top of this page:

Note: DMCA take-down notice on this article

 * Please see Diff, and Diff. Cirt - (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * - From the review of this document at Wikileaks - The file in question appears significant because the book is strictly confidential among the Mormon (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, aka LDS in short form) bishops and stake presidents and it reveal the procedure of handling confidential matters related to tithing payment, excommunication, baptism and doctrine teaching (indoctrination). The book is not generally available for normal members. The book was handed down or leaked by the member who held a respectable position within the church hierarchy in a regional ward or stake (place of church). - So this seems to be a significant development. Cirt - (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is nothing to do with Scientology. Totally different. I see it as news. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because a publication is not generally available does not make its availability on the Internet noteworthy, especially when it has also been on the Internet for years. Also, Wikinews should not be directing readers to material that was illegally uploaded in violation of a copyright. -- Alanraywiki - (talk) 03:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We report on news and anything that is news. Whether what we are reporting about is copyrighted or not is not the issue. Wikileaks is responsible for that, not us. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 05:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * While I contribute occasionally as an IP, I'm not going to vote because I don't have an established Wikinews name. However, it really seems to me as if there's no news here.  1.  This document has been available on the internet for quite some time (ie, this is "yesterday's news").  2.  The current article states nothing which is not already readily available information (as one IP has pointed out, all this info is in the freely available Encyclopedia of Mormonism already).  So there really seems to be nothing newsworthy here at all.  75.15.204.227 08:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a first time a restricted doc has been made available--A101 - (talk) 08:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Can we, then, remove from the article all the ordinary stuff which is of no public interest (available in Mormon Encyclopaedia), and keep/put in the more controversial stuff which Cirt mentions above? Thus I think it could be made more newsworthy. Harris Morgan - (talk) 09:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC).
 * But agree we should clarify why the leak is significant. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 14:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * as I can't see the real significance beyond it being previously restricted which doesn't automatically make it newsworthy. I hope we're not going to be beginning to report on everything that Wikileaks gets hold of. Oh, perhaps we are. Adambro - (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Acconrding to the deletion options, I have the right to get this article speedily deleted (as the creator of this article). Could someone please confirm I have that right?--A101 - (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you really shouldn't have SDed it, IMO. This DR should have run it's course. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 15:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you really shouldn't have SDed it, IMO. This DR should have run it's course. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 15:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. this was published and blogged and such. So this is uncalled for and just makes me upset. Don't publish articles if all you are going to do is sway a deletion vote people. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also you cannot claim rights on an article others have significantly contributed to. After that, this is not one persons work. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And also...this was not three days and it was OR so this was not here for 7 days. What have the admins been doing? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have restored and removed Anon101's edits. This article was published for some time and had edits from many other contributers. The DR was brought by an anon contributer which usually is not a process we follow. On top of that it was then put into this DR and votes started. Then an admin took it upon themselves to ignore the DR and ignore our processes and delete it himself. Up until now, everything has been done in total disregard to policy and such. So I removed his edits and put it into development and as far as I am concerned this DR can run its course, or it can be published. Since policy was not followed otherwise, I would hope if i am blocked, then the others who let this mess happen are too. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If ythe community wants this to continue this dr let it continue. I made a mistake. Sorry, DragonFire. Unfourtunately, I am not perfect, I did something to avoid arguement and unfourtunately it made a gigantic mess. I am taking a break from this project because of this mess. I am sorry for what I did wrong.--A101 - (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am just upset that all these processes are in place and not a single on was followed and not a single admin made any attempt to find an alternative to fixing this. Instead it was delte delete delete. If we are not going to follow prosesses and policies, why have them? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I should have followed policies. I made a mistake. Again, sorry.--A101 - (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said its not entirely your fault. You are a good write and contributer. But other admins should have stepped up and tried to work something out. Instead it was allowed to get this far. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not feel that this article is newsworthy. An internal handbook of an organization being leaked would only be newsworthy if there was something interesting. From what I can see, everything is pretty much in line with public positions of the church. There are no surprises. Further undermining the newsworthiness is that according to Wikipedia other unauthorized copies have to light of various editions (this may be the first for the 1999 edition). Also, I think the first sentence is misleading. "Wikinews has obtained a copy ..." But the truth is we have viewed a PDF document which is allegedly a scan of said book. We are trusting Wikileaks it seems for the fact that is a copy of the book. This is far different from having a physical copy of the book in our possession. However, all that being said ... since it has been published ... and people did take notice. I think we need to keep it. We can't just straight up delete it. We could issue a retraction, but that wouldn't work since the story is not false, it's just more who cares. --SVTCobra 18:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is concensus that 5 hours (the amount of time I believe this was published) is a short time (per Brianmc below), I will gladly change my vote to remove. --SVTCobra 13:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that this is still lingering has made it unpublishable. I am changing my vote to remove. --SVTCobra 23:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * but would have voted if more facts had been available, and the DR proposed before or very shortly after publication. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As an unregistered user I won't vote, but I would like to offer my opinion. The fact that the booklet itself was leaked can be considered newsworthy - as it is generally only available to certain people within the LDS, and it is related to religion. However, the content (I believe) is not newsworthy. It is freely available online in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, published in 1992. The content is not particularly controversial. As I see it, the LDS don't particularly want to stop people from knowing the content of the book, they just feel that it is only really useful to bishops (or whatever they're called) and other high-ranking members of the church. In addition, I do not think that publishing a direct link to the PDF file is acceptable when we have the bibliographical information of the book. When citing the book, the original bibliographical information should be used. If people want to access the book, they should be able to put two and two together when they read "Wikileaks has published a leaked copy of the Church Handbook of Instructions" and just go to Wikileaks and search for it themselves. In my view there is no reason to break bibliographical standards to provide a link to a copyright infringement. I understand that since I'm not an extablished user here any vote I make will be discounted, but I'm hoping that since I am an established user on Wikipedia my comments will be left up. Cheers. 210.9.138.236 04:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the leak is newsworthy, perhaps (though it seems such a minor leak, really), but the content is certainly not. It would perhaps have been better to just include this in an episode of Wikinews Shorts.  75.15.198.222 05:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Davidovic, if that is your standard, then we could have an article "Internal document of the Department of Defense leaked" for it to only be about how they changed the lunch schedule at the Pentagon. Not every leak is newsworthy. --SVTCobra 13:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, certainly not, and I think the arguments against this leak being newsworthy are just as strong as the arguments for it being newsworthy. My main problem with the article is that most of it definately not news, and it leaks to copyrighted information. 210.9.138.236 14:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Every news article that is not original reporting links to copyrighted material. Reuters, CNN, etc are all copyrighted. We link to them every day. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I still disagree that the copyright issue is the same. CNN, for example, is the copyright holder and publishes the information on the Internet.  In the case with the LDS Church publication, the church is the copyright holder and did not grant permission for someone to post it on the Internet.  Wikinews is supposed to respect copyrights from an ethical and potentially legal standpoint.  I believe linking to copyrighted material that was illegally uploaded is not respecting copyrights.  Alanraywiki - (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * we do respect them. Wikileaks uploaded it, not us. We report on what they have and by doing so we are subjected to fair use, which we use in this case. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Emily Browning sought for Irishman film
I consider the newsworthiness of this article to be questionable. The casting of an actress for a role in a movie about a sport which doesn't appear to notable is perhaps not worthy of a news article. The "sport" of Rockerball article on Wikipedia was deleted following a discussion in which it was highlighted that there are no Google News hits for the sport and that remains the case which I would suggest would be a strong indication that this sport isn't notable. Adambro - (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 * I was wondering when this was going to come up. It dosen't bother me if you delete this page. The only thing I going to say to the comments on the talk page is thanks for answering some of the questions I had. --RockerballAustralia - (talk) 11:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * The sooner RockerballAustralia realizes that wikis are not toys for his amusement/fantasies, the better. TheCustomOfLife - (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * agree with Mike. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * as not news., can I suggest that you create a wiki on Rockerball if thats what interests you. A101 - (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Like I said on the Talk page, Rockerball is a joke if not a hoax, and "seeking" an actress for a film is not news until they get signed up. Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 00:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * --SVTCobra 09:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * --Brian McNeil / talk 10:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would, however, accept an article declaring the fact that she had signed up if she actually does. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I was going to speedy it earlier. --TUFKAAP - (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Categorical index
This Meta inspired index is not really useful here. While pretty and well-intentioned, I think it is time we get rid of it. It was clearly created with encyclopedia in mind and not news. --SVTCobra 00:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * per own nom. --SVTCobra 00:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Cirt - (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikinews:Browse is fine for a news site A101 - (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Unrequired Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 06:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikibreak
Just links to Wikipedia page

votes

 * as nom --A101 - (talk) 11:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * per nom. Cirt - (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * not used either. --SVTCobra 00:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 06:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * per nom. --Ryan524 - (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Market Data/^MXX
This appears to be designed for regular updating, but is long-dead. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * , agree w/ nom, it's as of July 26, 2005. Cirt - (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * per nom --Skenmy(t•c•w) 17:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * and mark as historic--A101 - (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It can be marked historic and also is part of a large group of the market that we do have on WN. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree about marking it has historic.--Ryan524 - (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * per A101. --TUFKAAP - (talk) 06:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Adolf Hitler
Do I need to go into great depth as to why this is ripe for, and already, being abused? --Brian McNeil / talk 21:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 * Comment I will refrain for comment from others, but I'm not trying to abuse it. You're free to draw up useage guidlines for such categories, as we will have to accept that there be questions like this to answer again and again as Wikinews expands. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Look critically at some of the articles listed where the name "Adolf Hitler" never appears in the article. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I found none where the name wasn't mentioned (apart from anything else I found them all by searching 'Hitler') but I have decided to trim three as not perhaps directly relevant enough. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * seems to already contain some tangential articles, and agree w/ that this is a slippery slope.  Cirt - (talk) 02:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Way too open, since "They are doing what Hitler did against the Jews" is apparently enough to warrant inclusion into the category. We could also rename it to Category:Godwin's Law. ;) EVula // talk // 19:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Haha Godwin's Law. I wonder how long it will take for Godwin's Law to take effect in this discussion. ;)  Cirt - (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * per above. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 19:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * speedily everyone thinks it was a bad idea. I vote lets get rid of the bloody thing right away. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * a news site doesn't need a category for a person who died 60 years ago. --A101 - (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Eve Carson promo photo.jpg
An image used in University of North Carolina student body president murdered (since removed). The image claims to be from the "Students for Eve Carson for SBP" but the link provided is not open and there is no fair-use rationale. Further, since we already have Image:Eve Carson.PNG (also used in same article), it is redundant and unnecessary and serves no newsworthy purpose. BTW, I am archiving the article without the image. --SVTCobra 23:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Votes
per above --TUFKAAP - (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * per own nomination. --SVTCobra 23:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * per nom, it is nice to see this issue was raised now rather than it disappearing into the "untouchable" archives. I think it is a stretch to say that this image added to a Facebook group could really be classed as publicity and so come under our fair use whitelist. Adambro - (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree w/ nom and above comments. Cirt - (talk) 05:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Clear copyvio IMO Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 06:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * . per Blood Red Sandman --A101 - (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * . They took it from her facebook account. How tacky is that? TheCustomOfLife - (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

News briefs:April 08, 2008
I want to rectify this as quickly as possible. The aforementioned page is a transcript for Audio Wikinews. It only contains content from other Wikinews articles, and yet it has been listed for deletion as a "copyvio" because it is identical to content found at mensnewsdaily.com but that is because Mensnewsdaily.com mirrors Wikinews.
 * Please do not vote do delete. --Munchkinguy - (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Problem has been resolved. --Munchkinguy - (talk) 03:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Key Witness for Pennsylvania AG has more problems
Something in the way this article has been handled has prevented it from showing up on WN:PROD and thus it has lingered. The article has not been improved for many days despite the WN:COI and WN:NPOV notices. It was not readily found in the Newsroom. I guess we will have to delete it through this process. --SVTCobra 01:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Votes
per own nomination --SVTCobra 00:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC) per, but just so there's no confusion might be helpful if you put a sig next to the nom statement as well. Cirt - (talk) 01:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. --SVTCobra 01:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 08:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC) --TUFKAAP - (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC) LaGrotta just admitted to accepting checks. vote struck out as it is by a new user who has just vandalised this page

Church of Scientology warns Wikileaks over documents
Not newsworthy. Flogging a dead horse. Personal vendetta.

Comments

 * Why even written? --Brian McNeil / talk 23:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have been called anti-Scientology and unprofessional because I wrote more anti Scientology articles than another user. I have been insulted and I feel I have no reason to be. I write what I see as news and I don't care what the subject is. If I see something as news I will write it. I would be happy to write a pro Scientology article, if one spurs my interest. I am think I am going to take a Wikibreak and decide what I am going to do here. I love wikinews, but not when I get accused of things I am not by people who never met me. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I stand middle-ground on whether this should be kept or deleted, but I don't think the influx of Anonymous/anti-Scientology people shouting "Keep - to expose the lies" here really help the cause. Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 00:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Lawsuits against Wikileaks was news according to the Wikinews community. The Operating Thetan docs when first posted on Wikileaks was news according to the Wikinews community; it was even given "special report" status.  Why is Scientology's response to the leak being considered not news?  Any journalist covering this story in print or on TV would follow up, as the original author of this article has done. --ANonHubbard - (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, but there's been a bit of debate as to whether those things were newsworthy, or whether there is a general anti-Scientology bias on Wikinews at the moment. So, given that it's a follow-up I agree the article is fine, but on the larger scale it's harder to tell whether any of these articles should have been there in the first place. I think the two loci of discussion at the moment are at WN:AAA and the Wikinewsie blog (should be linked in the thread on AAA). Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 01:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Article created by at 22:02, 6 April 2008.  A user named  after that, at 23:13, 6 April 2008, requested that an article on that exact same topic be created on Wikinews - without knowing that one had already been created.  's judgment on the newsworthiness of this story was sound - both because of this and because of the reasoning I laid out in my "Keep" comment, below.  Cirt - (talk) 03:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I also want to be clear. I saw this as news. Nothing more. I did not sit here pondering my next move against Scientology. I was informed of the pending press release and wrote based on what Wikileaks wrote. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 3:30 am...10 minutes ago...when I published this early on I submitted to digg.com. It is now on front page. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 07:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * reopened bacuase most support votes are from new/unregistered users. Some users suggest we ignore these--Anonymous101 (talk &middot; contribs) (Note I have no link with the organization anonymous) 08:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * These are the people reading the article(s) on Wikinews...they want it...should we disregard their say? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 08:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, if they are all members of Anonymous (which one of them said they were) --Anonymous101 (talk &middot; contribs) (Note I have no link with the organization anonymous) 08:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with Anonymous. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 08:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It does, just indirectly. --Anonymous101 (talk &middot; contribs) (Note I have no link with the organization anonymous) 08:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Even so, the registered user votes of keep outweigh the removes and neutrals. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 08:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw this article on Digg and was surprised to see that it was on Wikinews (I thought it was a news article on another site). Seeing the deletion notice I decided to comment. I'm primarily active on Wikipedia and Commons, but I'm somewhat familiar with Wikinews' policies, fwiw. ~MDD4696 14:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: correctly closed his own deletion request as Speedy keep, and this discussion was reopened.  It should be closed back down again with the same conclusion.  This may very well be the first time that an article on Wikinews has hit the front page of Digg.com, and is almost certainly the first time that an article on Wikinews has hit the front page of Digg.com - while also undergoing a deletion request discussion.  Cirt - (talk) 09:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * At this point, deleting it will completely invalidate Wikinews' stated goal: "the idea of participatory journalism", based on "the belief that citizens know what is news like no others." Is it wise to completely invalidate the whole site based on a bureaucratic nitpicking? --ANonHubbard - (talk) 09:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of these keep votes are worthless. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You write that because you don't agree. That doesn't make things any better. --DracoFlameus - (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't know me from Adam, so shut up when you don't know what you're talking about. Otherwise you risk severe injury when it comes time to extract your foot from your overly-active mouth. Read the above comments, I tried to speedily close the vote even though I raised it and thought it was time we got a hell of a lot more discriminating about what Scientology news we covered. Let me repeat that I closed the vote as keep. Someone else reopened it. The reason these votes are worthless is they are from people who either haven't registered, or have done so for the sole purpose of participating in this vote. It doesn't matter if they are well-respected Wikipedians or anything like that. You are expected to have participated and contributed here before anything other than the most eloquent of reasoning will be counted in a vote. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that a policy? As I recall its not. Apparently this is what thy want to see and I ask why this is being delayed. This IMHo is ridiculous now. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * Wiki is all about free speech, no matter what it is. It is hypocritical to delete this article because you don't agree with it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aequitas (talk • contribs)  — Aequitas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * As nom. Persecution. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes this is newsworthy. The Church denies the contents exist to lower members and the public. By suing for copyright infringement, they are indeed claiming the contents are accurate.  And persecution?  Are you serious?  --ANonHubbard - (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)  — ANonHubbard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Newsworthy. This is a test of wikileaks, and I for one want to see if they can deliver on their promises. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Power4people (talk • contribs)  — Power4people (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Seems semi-newsworthy, but I will admit Scientology news is going a bit overboard. Seems pretty neutral, but then again, only sources are from Wikileaks. Until further notice, I'm neutral. --TUFKAAP - (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If all the other stories where Wikileaks were sued for copyright infringement were wikinewsworthy, why is this one not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.42.253.186 (talk • contribs)  — 217.42.253.186 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * It's received attention on Slashdot's firehose.It coudl use some cleaning up but it ought to stay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.151.3.10 (talk • contribs)  — 64.151.3.10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * When a multi-billion dollar corporation threatens to sue an open-source movement over space-opera documents, when it's both denied with its words and affirmed with its actions the genuine nature of these documents, and when they're already in the news because a world-wide movement out of effectively nowhere has augmented the critics it already had, then it's newsworthy.Stealthbadger - (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC) — Stealthbadger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Very newsworthy, the public needs to know every move this cult makes, and every move we make against it. We are Anonymous, and We are Here! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.86.133.20 (talk • contribs)  — 67.86.133.20 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * - The initial story was newsworthy, and thus a follow-up piece would certainly be justifed on its own - but the fact that the Church of Scientology has taken action in this matter only makes this more newsworthy, not less. To quote Mark Stephens, media lawyer for Finers Stephens Innocent in London, in commenting on a similar story: The Scientologists, by taking action to enforce their copyrights, have made it a news story. (Source: ) - Cirt - (talk) 03:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See also Streisand effect. Cirt - (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Not newsworthy, as it concerns a routine form-letter as sent by lawyers whenever copyright violation is detected or alleged. And Wikinews has surely been beating up the "Scientology vs. Internet" story long enough. 203.26.122.12 06:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC) — 203.26.122.12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * It seems newsworthy but I think there has been too much coverage of Anon/CoS --Anonymous101 (talk &middot; contribs) (Note I have no link with the organization anonymous) 07:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * per Anoymous101. We seem to have a number of new/unregistered users who have popped up to vote keep, I presume we'll be disregarding these? Adambro - (talk) 07:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is most certainly newsworthy, particularly if you look at the reaction to the story on other social news sites. Krisjohn - (talk) 10:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To quote from WN:DG, "For a page to be deleted, it should meet criteria listed below, and the community should agree that the article needs deletion." "Too much coverage" is not one of those criteria, so the article should be kept. Z00r - (talk) 10:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * TheCustomOfLife - (talk) 11:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? Cirt - (talk) 11:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * wikileaks is a hot topic lately, and wikileaks and scientology preparing to trade blows is definitely news-worthy Kral - (talk) 04:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is indeed utterly newsworthy. I echo the comments made by Cirt above- the fact that the Church of Scientology is involved only makes this more newsworthy. This is another example of the Streisand Effect in action. --JamesHarrison - (talk) 11:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Highly newsworthy as it involves a current event with great public interest (see also Anonymous/Chanology/etc.), and exactly the sort of issue Wikinews needs to report on because it's likely to get buried in mainstream news outlets. Arancaytar - (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC) — Arancaytar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * If it is newsworthy enough to hit the frontpage of reddit.com then it cannot be deleted 193.60.161.82 13:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC) — 193.60.161.82 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I think that this is newsworthy. To say that an objectively written article is persecution or a personal vendetta is ridiculous. ~MDD4696 14:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is on the digg.com frontpage. If that isn't making it newsworthy, then I don't know what it is. --DracoFlameus - (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC) — DracoFlameus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * right ... like digg is the end-all-be-all of news --SVTCobra 14:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No reason to be angry. If you don't like digg, that is ok. But the fact is that Digg has a lot of readers (digg effect) and only a small part of the news is hitting front page, let alone the Top10 of all news. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DracoFlameus (talk • contribs)
 * You shouldn't be voting unless you are basing your vote on Wikinews policy. Voting because it is Top10 on digg.com or some other popularity contest is not a valid way to vote. --SVTCobra 16:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As much as I feel that our "Scientology vs. Internet"-type stories are far too abundant, this one is more newsworthy than its predecessor: CoS documents leaked online, which reads like a book report and not a news article. --SVTCobra 14:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not as newsworthy as original document release but we should follow the progress of our stories as this update does. -- SEWilco - (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * News is news, regardless of if you agree or disagree with it. Bamnet - (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC) — Bamnet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This is actually newsworthy, for once. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 16:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A lot of people are interested in both Scientology and wikileaks. Whether they are for or against the article, people want to know, and thats why it should be kept.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.174.110.147 (talk • contribs)

Image:Greceanii.jpg
Invalid fair use claim. It would be possible to create or obtain a free alternative. Adambro - (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * The quote justifying it's use in news is identical (word for word) to the one used I used at Image:NCMC1092535c1.jpg]. The quote is from the Utah government's website. --Anonymous101 (talk &middot; contribs) (Note I have no link with the organization anonymous) 20:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Per A101. --TUFKAAP - (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree that a free-use alternative could be found. Cirt - (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * faulty claim for fair use. If not improved to valid claim referencing that country's copyright laws before this closes, it should be deleted. --SVTCobra 00:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Energy in transportation
This category, which has been around for a while but is unused. It seems, to me, overly encyclopedic. We already have Category:Energy and Category:Transport. To be fair I discovered it when it was added to California offers rebates for alternative fuel vehicles, so it wasn't totally unused at that moment, but I have since removed the cat from that article. --SVTCobra 02:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So long as the category existed it shouldn't have been removed IMO. I won't re-add it now as I'm about to delete it anyway. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Votes
per own nomination. --SVTCobra 02:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC) I was the one that had added it to that particular article, because I found the cat and it was obviously applicable to that article - but Category:Energy and Category:Transport are sufficient for this sort of article. Cirt - (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Help:Unified login
This is a local copy of the page on Meta at meta:Help:Unified login. I don't see any purpose for having this locally, it will quickly become out of date and so useless. We can simply link to the page on Meta as is done already. Adambro - (talk) 07:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Votes
I would tend to agree with the nomination that it makes no sense to maintain our own local copy. --SVTCobra 13:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * --TUFKAAP - (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * . It's also a copyvio as it is GFDL. --Anonymous101 (talk &middot; contribs) 06:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.86.133.20 (talk • contribs)
 * - But would there still be a soft-redirect at that page? Cirt - (talk) 11:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

News briefs:March 03, 2008
This was never completed, I guess due to time pressures. That means we don't need to keep it, either. (destroy the evidence! ;-) Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * --TUFKAAP - (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Per . Cirt - (talk) 11:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Biological Anthropology
There is also Category:Anthropology, which I think would cover any articles for this category. I just don't think we need both of them. (→ Zachary ) 05:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * , per my reasons above. (→ Zachary ) 05:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * --Anonymous101 (talk &middot; contribs) 06:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * --Brian McNeil / talk 07:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * too specific/encyclopedic --SVTCobra 13:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * --TUFKAAP - (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * - Agree w/ . Cirt - (talk) 11:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Times Square explosion.PNG
Unfree image from a webcam in Times Square used to illustrate an incident at the location in two articles. However, it is impossible to justify use of this unfree image because it would be perfectly feasible for a free image to have been created or found and a "library" image of Times Square would be acceptable if all else fails. Adambro - (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nominator. Adambro - (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * . Just because there could be a free image doesn't mean there is. Changed to --Anonymous101 (talk &middot; contribs) 14:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That is the point though, we can only justify fair use where it isn't possible that a free image could be found, that certainly isn't the case here. Adambro - (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * . Have replaced the image with a free one in both articles here and here. --Jcart1534 - (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Copyvio, replaced with free image that illustrates it well enough. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 14:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * although it earns points for the "etc etc etc" in the attempt at a fair-use rationale. --SVTCobra 13:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Featuredpic
For a long while we've had a "featured picture" which isn't actually voted upon, rather simply one editor decided it is worthy of inclusion on the main page and Template:Featured picture is updated accordingly. Whilst it is good for the community to highlight good examples of photojournalism, in practice this doesn't fit in with how it actually works, the image is used to illustrate a current news event. This means it isn't possible for the images to be voted on and awarded "featured picture" status in the same sense as elsewhere on Commons and enwikipedia for example because of the time constraints.

I've recently moved Template:Featured picture to Template:News in pictures to better reflect the above. I'd now propose deleting the Template:Featuredpic template, used to highlight "featured pictures" and so recognise that many photos are displayed on the main page and it isn't anything particularly special.

Perhaps in the longer term we might wish to have "featured pictures" but this would have to be separate from any "news in pictures" section for the reasons I've noted. Until such time as a workable solution can be found I suggest we abandon the term "featured pictures" since only a very limited few have actually ever got community consensus. Adambro - (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 * I, for one, would like to see some more people chiming in before we declare a consensus on this. --SVTCobra 00:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nominator. Adambro - (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * the transition to the new News in pictures seems to have gone smoothly. Given current levels of contributorship I don't think we have time for a Featured pic nomination/voting process, the Pic-of-the-Year seems to be enough for now. --SVTCobra 21:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * for redundancy. --TUFKAAP - (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We not only have the time, but we have the numbers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.86.133.20 (talk • contribs)
 * I definitely agree with the reasons to delete it. TheCustomOfLife - (talk) 11:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * explained it well. News in pictures works nicely for the time being.  Cirt - (talk) 11:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * for clarity, any 'featured' connotation was a misnomer. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

13 Year Old Boy Runs For President
Okay, seriously, this is not news IMO, anyone else agree? No to menion the COI issue, and the fact that nobody can rewrite it because asside from the FEC site, what source is there?--Ryan524 - (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * . Maybe in 2047. TheCustomOfLife - (talk) 10:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * With prejudice. We're not a freakin' blog, this is not the place for "OMG! Anyone can be president, I want my finger on the button!" --Brian McNeil / talk 14:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * . As much as find it funny, it is not news. Anonymous101  14:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * as this is clearly nonsense. Adambro - (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyone recall a similar situation before? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * could probably have been left for WN:PROD. This actually takes longer. --SVTCobra 14:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Bad grammar and spelling + informal tone obviously indicates the necessity of deletion. -EzMaTezPez (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * EzMa, those aren't valid reasons for deletion ... those could be fixed. --SVTCobra 14:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg|15px]] Speedily Delete the mf'er. --TUFKAAP (talk) 06:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus
I think most of the time policy proposals should stay off of DR, this policy is so fundamentally broken though, it is worthy of a DR. Consensus should never ever be limited to a fixed metric, nor is a definition of consensus needed, Wiktionary does a good enough job of providing definitions.--Cspurrier - (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * per nom. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 20:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:2006-09-02 story image At Last.jpg
Don't see how fair use can be claimed for an image that is of a living person who often makes public appearances. A101 - (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

votes

 * —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anonymous101 (talk • contribs)
 * although I appreciate that there could be an argument that this might be publicity, considering there is no source information which means it can't be verified and there is no fair use rationale I don't see how we can continue using this. Adambro - (talk) 11:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Alert toast eng.png
Not used in main namespace. A101 - (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments
This nomination is weird in that non-main namespace usage is less of a copyvio threat. However, this image, while perhaps generated by Symode09 using off-site services by Microsoft, is not "original" and contains copyrighted logos of Microsoft, without a rationale. Wikinews should not be hosting this image. If, as claimed, it is for illustration of a service that Wikinews could use, it should be hosted off-site. It can still be linked from the discussion. --SVTCobra 00:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anonymous101 (talk • contribs)
 * per own comment above. --SVTCobra 00:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Darrell Hair.jpg
Don't see how fair use can be claimed for an image that is of a living person who often makes public appearances. A101 - (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom A101 - (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * as I agree entirely with the nom. Adambro - (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * clear copyvio Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * the image is being used in a story and unless someone has a free alternative this one can be used under fair use ratinal as far as I understand. So would one of you have a free alternative to use in the article?--71.217.196.15 18:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Second time I did this while I wasn't logged in.--Ryan524 - (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)  Given the clairification on this I change my vote to delete but as per WN:SD since this image contravenes the fair use policy it is a canidate for speedy deletion, is it not?--Ryan524 - (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, we can't use it as fair use because it would have been perfectly feasible for a free alternative to have been found or created. Adambro - (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * but there is not one. if wikinews or commons has one THEN there would be no fair use raitinal, but while we don't have one fair use  rational works.  If it's so "feasible" to get a free alternative why don't you find/make one?--Ryan524 - (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you seriously misunderstand fair use if you think that the lack of an image on Wikinews or on Commons means that we can use an unfree image. Fair use, and specifically the WMF's use of the right, is much more stringent than that. Adambro - (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (Edit Conflict) That isn't how fair use works at all. Fair use doesn't merely require there to be no free alternative, it requires it to be hard, almost if not impossible, to make one. By almost I mean dangerous or illegal or something lke that. Living people are not considered suitable, exceptions being a person in hiding, missing, not coming out of his/her warzone etc. Just be grateful for such a flexible copyright law as it is. In the UK they wouldn't allow it. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not versed with fair use, thanks for clairifying.--Ryan524 - (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm actually going t apologise because reading what I wrote it looks more aggressive than intended. Sorry there. As to speedy deletion.... Yes, probably, but this seems to be how we do it - similar requests have created almighty arguments in the past. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a problem, I'm sure this isn't the first tie theirs been a fir use argument...lol.--Ryan524 - (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Per . Cirt - (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * --TUFKAAP - (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Church of Scientology donates books to library in the Philippines
I know we've recently had a number of articles which might be said to portray the Church of Scientology negatively with questionable newsworthiness, we don't have to nor should we write articles of questionable newsworthiness that could be seen to be positive about the Church. They've donated some books, so what, from my understanding this is part of what the Church does. I don't see how this is newsworthy and so propose it is deleted. Adambro - (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 * Arresting criminals is oart of what the police does. That doesn't make it less newsworthy. --A101 - (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd dispute that comparison, just as not every arrest is newsworthy, not every Church of Scientology donation is newsworthy. Adambro - (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Haven't made my mind up yet but I would like to thank DragonFire for creating an article that co uld be seen to be positive about the Church. Articles like these are, IMO, essential in creating a NPOV. --A101 - (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would disagree, we don't achieve NPOV by balancing questionable articles which could be perceived to be anti-CoS with questionable articles which could be perceived to be pro-CoS or show them in a positive light. It is inevitable that in some cases, there will be more newsworthy articles which could be perceived to be negative about an issue. We achieve NPOV by ensuring that when we write a story about a newsworthy incident we are sure to give as unbiased a view as possible but again, we don't have one "positive" story for each "negative" story, that isn't how news writing works nor should it. Adambro - (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * - See this info:
 * Hardly seems newsworthy to report on a propaganda campaign of this nature. Cirt - (talk) 11:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, but propaganda campaigns by Anonymous are worthy of extensive coverage? And putting books in libraries hardly meets any definition of propaganda that I know of. Libraries are supposed to have books of every stripe. Or would you rather that all of Hubbard's books were burned? --JustaHulk - (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I do not want any books to be burned. But issuing a directive like: The purpose of this campaign is: TO INFUSE THE PLANET WITH SOURCE BY GETTING THE LRH BASICS BOOKS INTO EVERY SINGLE LIBRARY ON PLANET EARTH AND BRINGING THE GOLDEN AGE OF KNOWLEDGE TO MILLIONS OF NEW PUBLIC. certainly seems more like a propaganda campaign rather than simply an effort at "putting books in libraries..." Cirt - (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh, that is PR. You don't fall for PR, do you? Especially PR for the Scientology believer. If you do then I have some OT Levels to sell you. The fact of the matter is that the actual activity in the physical universe is putting books in libraries, an entirely appropriate activity in just about any imaginable case. And certainly one entirely in line with the basic values of the internet - free information on everything. If someone picks up and reads a book by Hubbard, they know they are getting Hubbard's viewpoint, that is hardly propaganda. No, propaganda (in one common form) is when editors and authors with a bias and an agenda slant articles in trusted media (or what would like to be trusted media) to forward their agenda. Usually by the use of cherry-picked sources and loaded terms. That is propaganda. --JustaHulk - (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is getting completely off-topic of this deletion discussion for this article. My comment above that those press releases and the "PR" you refer to is actually a form of propaganda campaign stands. You can have the last word if you want to, but further discussion on this digression seems pointless in this deletion discussion.  Cirt - (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is getting completely off-topic of this deletion discussion for this article. My comment above that those press releases and the "PR" you refer to is actually a form of propaganda campaign stands. You can have the last word if you want to, but further discussion on this digression seems pointless in this deletion discussion.  Cirt - (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please, don't you two get started again. --SVTCobra 18:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, good point, thanks for stepping in. Cirt - (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it seemed appropriate since you both say that this particular story is not newsworthy. So y'all were running off-topic pretty quickly. --SVTCobra 00:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * True, thanks. Cirt - (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with this article. It follows policy, style, and etc. I don't think that anyone should be disagreeing that this is not an article because its 18 books. So what? If were 1 book or 1,000 books. What difference does it make? More or less of something does not make it any less of a news story. Not all stories are going to be exciting or filled with massive amounts of information. To assume so is ridiculous. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * When I pop my clogs whatever library gets my book collection will need to buy some new shelves. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * It is written from a press release. Someone somewhere thought it was news to write the release. Can you, adambro, tell me where, despite the lack of sources, that this is questionable? A "So what" attitude does not make it ok to request an article for DR. If we said so what to a news article we didn't like, then we would be dealing with DR's all the time. Just because I don't like the subject or what its about, or the lack of excitement, does not make it any less news. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you'll have to excuse my inability to understand much of your comment but to respond to your first point which I can understand, I think this being written from a press release is a reason to question the newsworthiness, not to simply accept it. I would have thought you would have understood the concept of a press release and how organisations will release press releases about many things of which only a few might be newsworthy. You've got to appreciate that the intention of any press release is to show the organisation in a good light and so to base an article primarily on a press release is just asking for trouble
 * So press releases by a government are questionable? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * All press releases are questionable and not automatically newsworthy. In this case the press release could be seen a polite gesture in response to the donation. Adambro - (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So you are now accusing the Philippine government of writing a propaganda press release? Do you have evidence that this was a "polite gesture in response to the donation?" DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Adambro, this is like the Wikileak, it may be a boring subject but it is still news. --A101 - (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that I'm not suggesting this is boring, rather that it is not a particularly noteworthy event. Adambro - (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I found the article interesting and news-worthy; I wasn't aware that the CoS donated books by their founder. It made me wonder what motivates the donation: philanthropy, propaganda, both? I think that's noteworthy enough in stimulating some thought. Wikidsoup - (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Having once worked in a public library, I'd like to point out that this single public library (one of about 10 in the county) often received several hundred books in donations a month (and significantly more than that in monetary donations). For a multi-million dollar organization to donate 18 books is hardly newsworthy.  Libraries get much larger donations all the time.  While it is nice to see the Church of Scientology giving something away for free, I do not see how 18 books is a big deal.  Or would it be worthwhile for me to write a Wikinews article every time the local library receives a donation of 10+ books?  Also, WN:NOT (Wikinews articles are not press releases.)  75.15.204.227 07:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Per, and this last very cogent comment by . Cirt - (talk) 08:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was a bit surprised to see this article here. Not because it is positive but because it is so not newsworthy. As already mentioned the Church routinely donates book to libraries (or rather the members do, it is a member-sponsored program) and has been doing so for many years. Currently there is a program running to donate a full set of Scientology basic books to every library on the planet and I think that hundreds of sets have already been donated, if not more. This is, to me at least, the flip side of the recent article on the Church's lawyer sending a letter to Wikileaks about copyright infringement and requesting a take-down. Not newsworthy. One set of books, one letter advising of copyright violation. What is that (LOL WUT)? I wonder about the perspective of this project if such articles are considered worthy of coverage. However, if a reporter here wanted to do some original work they could write an article about the program overall. You know, interview someone from Bridge Publications. Don't know how newsworthy but something that might be. --JustaHulk - (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Press releases or not, saying that a donation of 18 books is newsworthy would justify a story about every grandmother who left her books to the local library. Further, religious organizations of every stripe donate books. The most prolific is probably Gideons International. If anyone thinks to say that this balances coverage of CoS because it is a "good news" story, I'd say that it is a backhanded compliment. I voted keep for the below DR about the 'leak' of a Mormon text. If you say I am inconsistent, I will have you note that I wish Copy of handbook for leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints obtained by Wikinews was never published. This article, however, seems to have been only briefly published and without much notice from the outside world. Therefore, we can and should delete it. Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was asked to look at this prior to first attempt at publication. My reflex reaction was, "not more Scientology stuff", my gut feeling on its newsworthiness was, "doesn't seem notable for just 18 books". Now I see here that this is an ongoing campaign by CoS, so really it'd be news if it was a new project and this was the initial/launch donation. What I do believe it does show, is that people are prepared to cover CoS material that may not be critical - there's just so little of it. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I fail to see what is news about this. TheCustomOfLife - (talk) 12:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The usual propaganda friends doing the usual propaganda against Scientology. But this article fulfills the requirements of an article and does not care about personal preferences. The Philippine Government found it noteworthy but Wikinewsies are smarter? Misou - (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikinews is relevant. Wikinews is not a place for press releases.  I would be glad to see the Church of Scientology do something positive that is Newsworthy, however.  Perhaps they should donate 18,000 books, instead of 18?  75.15.198.222 05:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC
 * I don't think the amount of books makes the least bit of difference. Also, this is an article written based on a press release. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You keep bringing up the press release ... what difference does that make? and of course the number of books matter. If Tom Cruise gives a quarter to a homeless guy on the street are you going to write "Scientologist donates money to homeless"? --SVTCobra 18:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Bad comparison. And why do they matter? As far as I am concerned there is no reason to delete this article unless someone can come up with something better than oh well they donated too few books. Find me a policy violation or etc. Because its really unfair to assume that just because its only 18 books makes it not news. IMO thats not a real objection, but a point of view more or less like "big deal." DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just as it is your opinion that this is newsworthy, it is a perfectly valid opinion to say it is not. Adambro - (talk) 20:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As much I want to keep for it objectivity, it's only 18 books. --TUFKAAP - (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Whether its actionable or not is another question. So far, no one really has states any serious and or policy breaking reason to have this deleted. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Deletion requests works like this; someone thinks we shouldn't have an article, they nominate it for deletion, the community discusses it and consensus is found, then the consensus is acted on, delete or keep. I don't think that is any different with this article. The "serious reason" why this should be deleted is that it is not newsworthy, simple. Adambro - (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If we really want to get into what is and is not news, then we can discuss that on the policy page. This article is written from sources, 2 sources...one governmental and the other a paper. From what I recall in order for an article to be published, use more than one source, follow style and policy. This article follows that. And if people want o vote based on POV then why bother with NPOV at all? DR's are not a place for expression of a POV. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * its not real notworthty, and seems to me to be mere propaganda. Which if wikinews wants to be known as a propaganda press then go ahead and keep it, but I think it needs to be removed for wikinews' credibility so we don't just appear to be some propaganda press. --71.217.196.15 13:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Sorry that was me, I just wasn't logged in I guess.--Ryan524 - (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 18 books? Really?! By this standard the Gideons should be a regular feature on Wikinews. Ashibaka - (talk) 05:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Whereabouts-form.jpg
One of our so called Breaking news images which should have been dealt with long ago. Propose it is deleted because I can't see what it adds to the article beyond what could have been achieved by a link. Adambro - (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments
Though not the uploader, I was a major contributor to the article in which this image is/was used (and indeed the entire series that it is part of). At the time, and even now re-reading the article, I think the display of the UCI form that Rasmussen was accused of not submitting to be very interesting. Since it is a blank form it obviously does not provide any direct information that contributes to the article. On the other hand, also because it is blank, it does not violate any privacy issues. Also, this is not a document that UCI attempts to sell in any way, so reproducing it does not hinder their commercial rights. If it were a leaked government document or form, I don't think we'd be so discerning. I don't know if the governing body of a sports organization should be treated differently. That said, it is not vastly important to the article, so I will yield to the consensus without further comment. If kept, I will happily write a fair-use rationale. --SVTCobra 01:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * I don't like breaking the archive. --TUFKAAP - (talk) 04:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Removing images isn't "breaking the archive". Our archiving policy has nothing to do with how articles appear, rather it has everything to do with how they read. The key consideration is that we don't change the text from how it was, a reflection of what was known at the time. Anyway, regardless, this image should never have made it into the archive, images tagged as "breaking news images" are supposed to be dealt with before that point. This certainly shouldn't have been archived whilst this issue remained. Adambro - (talk) 09:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * With no rational or fair use justification but breaking news image (which no longer applies) this could be a copyvio --A101 - (talk) 06:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hard to say. I am borderline on this. A rational can clearly be made for one. And it can always be cut down to allow for fair use. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 08:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if this could be brought under fair use with an appropriate rationale the first question has to be does it really add anything to the article, especially considering that to actually read anything of the form you've got to view it at full size. This form could have been linked from the article if so desired but even then I'm not convinced it is particularly useful. Adambro - (talk) 09:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As it never should have been archived as such, and doesn't significantly add to the article. --  Zanimum - (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)