Wikinews:Deletion requests/Archives/2009

Stop Loss
This inactive page was only edited a few times in 2006 and seems to have fallen by the wayside. We don't really need a special page for it IMO. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * and tag as historic. --TUFKAAP (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As per TUFKAAP. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But I can live with historic for this. --SVTCobra 03:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * and tag with historic. Adambro (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * , tag with historic per above. R .T . 21:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments
If we want to confirm that it has been abandoned (which seems fair enough to me), we should tag it as historic instead of deleting it. --InfantGorilla (talk) 12:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:Controversy
Never used template (at least I've never noticed it in developing articles). On top of that, with flagged revs and peer review, I'm sure we all smart enough to detect controversial words. --TUFKAAP (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Votes
as nom, --TUFKAAP (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol delete vote.svg|15px]] Remove it is too vague to be suitable as a template: an issue such as bias should be discussed on the talk page, and possibly flagged with npov or with tasks ''InfantGorilla (talk) 10:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Other templates can do the same job. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Essentially useless. --SVTCobra 03:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:Hebrew
Useless template that isn't currently, and never will be, used for anything. It was also copy/pasted from Wikipedia, where it is one part of a series of templates that are of no particular use here. Anyway, as far as I can see all it does is set text size to 125% of standard. Gopher65talk 22:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * - Template unused and completely useless. Anonymous101talk 12:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles on Wikinews should be in English only. Quotes or passages should be translated. --SVTCobra 19:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * - It also sets fonts to one that could render hebrew (although most unicode fonts can - its not really a fringe language), and it sets text direction to Right to left. Maybe at some point could be useful for a userpage or talk page. No strong opinion (leaning towards delete). Bawolff ☺☻ 05:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Obama-alarabiya-screenshot.jpg
Image is clearly not free and there are plenty of images of Obama on commons. Having this particular image does nothing to the article. Not to mention its from a competing news agency. Personally I think it should be speedy deleted. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you read the fair use rationale? --SVTCobra 16:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am still uneasy, but withdraw my request. If anyone would like to continue with voting, by all means. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments
Please note that this image is only intended for use in Obama to Muslims: 'Americans are not your enemy' and only this article. Use in any other article would be a copyright violation. But in illustrating this historic interview, this is perfectly valid fair use. As you can see here, the Associated Press also believes that it constitutes fair use. --SVTCobra 16:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) How do we know that AP didn't license it from Al-arabiya ?  Broadcasters cross-license footage all the time.
 * 2) It may indeed be fair use, but it doesn't seem to meet the letter of Fair use, nor Image use policy, since the TV station neither licensed it to us, nor issued it in a press pack. And it is from a competitor.
 * --InfantGorilla (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: #2 Can you be more specific as to what "letter" it doesn't meet? May I remind you that we are talking about a screen shot, not a photograph. --SVTCobra 14:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good question.
 * "Photos from competing news organizations that are uploaded without permission can be deleted on sight."
 * The screenshot exemption (if it applies, which I doubt) does not get around the absolute ban on fair use images from competition.
 * InfantGorilla (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It may be historic, but still does not change the fact it is from a competing agency. If this same exact photo is being used in the AP, then that means the video of the interview is not online, and therefore is still from a competing agency. If the video is online, and another screen shot can be taken, then maybe it would work. But I still do not like using competing agency's work. I know someone will bring up al-Jazeera, but certain material of theirs is already listed as cc-by-2.0(3.0?). So that situation is completely different. They are also uploaded to commons. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 15:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, its likely the AP et al., paid for their image(s). DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 15:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The image that overwrote this one, although I appreciate the homemade version, honestly it's a really bad screenshot. If I didn't see the previous image, I would almost ask who this is. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realize that it is of terrible quality, but issues were raised that suggested that AP paid for their use, even though I did not get it from AP but Al Arabiya directly. It was also suggested that the video was not available online, however, it is. It can be accessed at http://evideo.alarabiya.net/ShowClip.aspx?clipid=2009.01.28.13.25.49.987 --SVTCobra 00:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I went and took a better quality screenshot of the video. It is approximately the same quality as the initial image, though it is a few pixels smaller. Gopher65talk 01:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am done arguing for this. While I remain unconvinced by the detractors, I relent because the time window to include this image is expiring.--SVTCobra 00:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Although not as clear a case, I think this is quite similar to File:CNN Obama.jpg. I've always believed that the Competing news organization sentance only applied to when we were reporting on the same thing they are. If we are reporting on the competing organization, they are no longer competing with us to report on some subject, but instead become the subject of our article. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * I am still uneasy, but given the historical significance, and the fact that a new one was obtained directly from the source, I am going to say keep. Provided its used only in the article it is pertained to. Aside from the non free status, I think the images FU its ok, so long as it follows policy of course. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * please read the fair use rationale and realize that the fact that Obama was on Al Arabia is historic and part of the story itself. AP and many other news sources are using this image to illustrate their stories about this interview. It is perfectly legitimate fair-use. --SVTCobra 16:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with SVT on this one. Since the subject of the article is his appearance on this specific tv station, part of what we want to illustrate on the article is the tv station. We are in essence reporting on the tv station, not on obama, thus we can use a picture of the tv station. (note: I modified the image use rationale slightly to make that clearer) (note: IANAL, my understanding of copyright is limited). Bawolff ☺☻ 05:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The screenshot FUR is not really worded as intending to apply to this. Thus, the rationale boils down to "Everyone else is using it, so why shouldn't we?" I've seen this several places, credited to AP. To err on the side of caution we must assume that means they licensed the image. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't obtain it from AP, but directly from Al Arabia. The new version is a 'true' screencapture of the online video, albeit lower resolution than the screenshot that Al Arabia put on their website. --SVTCobra 00:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol delete vote.svg|15px]] Remove Photography (videography) by a competitor. --InfantGorilla (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:WikiPedia
not to be confused with Template:Wikipedia

This template is not used and adds no functionality. Could probably be speedied. --SVTCobra 00:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom. --SVTCobra 00:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (I know this is closed, but feel a burning desire to comment.) Mediawiki's built in  automatically converted to   on save is much easier. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Continental Airlines Flight 3407 Crash.jpg
Just because we need a picture, doesn't mean we can just take others people's willy nilly. It is from a competing news organization, therefor we can not acceptably call it fair use. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note, could be speedied. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We did the same thing for Obama's first interview as president on an Arabic TV network. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 06:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

WN:FU says that "Photos from competing news organizations that are uploaded without permission can be deleted on sight." This image is clearly in violation of policy (and it is not currently used). And, For every second we are keeping it Wikinews is risking legal action for copyright infringement. Anonymous101talk 07:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In reply to DF: I don't really feel that the obama interview was as clear cut, but we definitly have a long history of deleting images from competing news sources used in the same context as the news source in question used it. Bawolff ☺☻ 08:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Charlesmore Partners Named a Quintegra Resourcing Premier Business Partner
Uhh... not sure how this managed to get published? I came upon it while doing some archiving. Not really a proper news article (more like a press release), so proposing deletion. Note, could be speedied. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 18:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments
If nobody objects within the next couple of hours, I may as well speedy delete it. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 00:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I just realised this is a copyvio. Definitely a speedy delete. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 00:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Votes
as nom. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 18:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Breaking-contribute
This is pretty much a duplicate of Template:Breaking news, not really needed. ♪Tempo di <font color="green" face="papyrus">Valse ♪ 22:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * Not used (ever, I suspect). Unprofessionally written. Redundant. Remove! --SVTCobra 21:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * &mdash; I don't see any use for this that can't be filled by the breaking template. Gopher65talk 00:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * per others. Anonymous101talk 09:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Template deleted, as it has been a full week since the DR opened. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">♪Tempo <font color="#00008B" face="Papyrus">di <font color="green" face="papyrus">Valse ♪ 22:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Surgery Prompts New Lease on Life and Music
Came over this while doing some archiving. No sources. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">♪Tempo <font color="#00008B" face="Papyrus">di <font color="green" face="papyrus">Valse ♪ 02:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

 * &mdash; I think this could be speedied as it is a direct copyvio of this page: http://www.ocmusicfest09.com/news/news5.html. I'm not sure how to deal with copyvios in the archive, but I think we delete them just like normal? Gopher65talk 02:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not certain, but I think that old copyvios (from several months ago) can be deleted on sight. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">♪Tempo <font color="#00008B" face="Papyrus">di <font color="green" face="papyrus">Valse ♪ 02:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I speedy-deleted the article. Normally, we wait a day before deleting, but seeing as this is a six-month-old article, I think it very unlikely that anybody will try to fix it. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">♪Tempo <font color="#00008B" face="Papyrus">di <font color="green" face="papyrus">Valse ♪ 03:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">♪Tempo <font color="#00008B" face="Papyrus">di <font color="green" face="papyrus">Valse ♪ 02:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Notable Cognitive Skills Research
Came upon this while archiving. Newsworthiness? Possibly a copyvio, although I checked, and it doesn't seem to be a copyvio of any of the included links. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">♪Tempo <font color="#00008B" face="Papyrus">di <font color="green" face="papyrus">Valse ♪ 14:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

 * I believe this could possibly be a speedy, I have no idea how this is even remotely newsworthy. <font face="Times New Roman" size="2.0" color="Red">R .<font face="Times New Roman" size="2.1" color="DimGray">T . 14:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedied. Probably got lost due to the mangled date template. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Request closed. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">♪Tempo <font color="#00008B" face="Papyrus">di <font color="green" face="papyrus">Valse ♪ 15:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Original storiesleet
The consensus seems to have been delete. <font color="#CC7722" face="Georgia">♪ Tempo <font color="#00008B" face="Georgia">di <font color="green" face="Georgia">valse ♪  16:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely useless template. Can't imagine we'd ever use it. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">♪Tempo <font color="#00008B" face="Papyrus">di <font color="green" face="papyrus">Valse ♪  16:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments
 * This template is used here: Terinjokes/Main Page. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I copied the template to User:Terinjokes/Main Page/Original storiesleet and used the copied template on Terinjokes' Main Page instead. I also left a note on his talk page. Van der Hoorn (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I really recommend for the future to leave a note on the user's talk page when you put something the user created, up for deletion. Even if the user isn't active, I presume most of us have the option enabled to receive an email when your talk page changes. Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Votes
 * or move to userspace. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Userspacify, or leave it be. Terinjoke's leet main page thingy isn't hurting anyone. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * to userspace. Van der Hoorn (talk) 12:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * or to userspace. Jacques Divol (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * as already copied to user-space. --SVTCobra 21:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

March 30
===Template:FrontPageMenuleet, Template:Wikinewslangleet, Template:donateleet, Template:Sisterprojectsleet, Template:Developing storiesleet,Template:FrontPageMediaMenuleet, Template:Start an articleleet, Template:Latest newsleet, Template:FrontPageSectionMenuleet===

While we're at it, we may as well delete or move these to the user space? They will never get any real use. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">♪Tempo <font color="#00008B" face="Papyrus">di <font color="green" face="papyrus">Valse ♪  13:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments
 * I moved all of the templates + the one from March 29 to his user space, so they can all be removed. Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Votes
 * to userspace. Van der Hoorn (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * as already copied to user-space. --SVTCobra 21:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:UCL current draw
Unused old template (2007). Van der Hoorn (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Votes
 * per nom. Van der Hoorn (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not currently serving any function, can't see how this can ever be useful. <font color="#CC7722" face="Georgia">♪ Tempo <font color="#00008B" face="Georgia">di <font color="green" face="Georgia">valse ♪  16:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * per nom, no potential for use. I note that as early as December 2007 this was being talked about for deletion. Adambro (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * --Brian McNeil / talk 21:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Jacroe (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Sosueme
Unused template, can't image a situation where this would be useful. Could be moved to userspace instead. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">♪Tempo <font color="#00008B" face="Papyrus">di <font color="green" face="papyrus">Valse ♪  20:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The consensus was to delete and userify. The template has been moved to User:Brianmc/Sosueme and the redirect suppressed. <font color="darkred" face="Georgia">tempo <font color="darkblue" face="Georgia">divalse  02:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments
 * I haven't used this because I didn't know it existed. :-P --Brian McNeil / talk 21:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's funny, because you created it. --SVTCobra 10:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just call me Al, Al-Zheimer. ;-) --Brian McNeil / talk 14:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Votes
 * to userspace and fix the link in the archive. Then it. Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * --SVTCobra 10:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I could imagine situations where this would be useful (and it made me laugh). Bawolff ☺☻ 04:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Football/Coca-Cola Football League
Speedy was requested, declined by me. I don't know, perhaps this has some function, so decided to list this here instead of zapping it. <font color="#CC7722" face="Georgia">tempo <font color="#00008B" face="Georgia">di <font color="green" face="Georgia">valse  19:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Consensus was to delete. <font color="darkred" face="Georgia">tempo <font color="darkblue" face="Georgia">divalse  01:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Votes
 * Unused uncategorized portal; many redlinks (i.e. non-existing templates). Also didn't have an update for a long time. Van der Hoorn (talk) 20:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * --SVTCobra 02:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

File:YouTube.gif
Links are being phased out and replaced by an .svg version of the image (see File:YouTube logo.svg). Once the transition is complete, the file can be deleted. Cflm001 (talk) 09:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Consensus was to delete. <font color="darkred" face="Georgia">tempo <font color="darkblue" face="Georgia">divalse  01:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments


 * I need someone to replace the link to this image on Template:YouTube. Cflm001 (talk) 09:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I fixed all other instances. Please check again before really deleting the image. Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Votes


 * as nominator. Cflm001 (talk) 09:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * if, and only if, there are no more links to the gif file (except for this page of course). Otherwise . Van der Hoorn (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * --SVTCobra 02:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

All templates in Category:Subtemplates of Template Convert and all templates in Category:Subtemplates of Template Rnd
I tried to copy the infamous Wikipedia Convert template to Wikinews. However, the template just has too many subtemplates (over a 1000) and it is really cumbersome to make it work on Wikinews + keep track of all the changes. Thus, I copied only templates based on our needs (see Category:Conversion templates for the ones which are currently usable). Therefore I recommend that we delete the subtemplates of convert and rnd (including rnd itself) that are currently present (both are incomplete). I already redirected the Convert template itself to the before mentioned category, so that users will use those templates instead. Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Votes
 * per nom. Van der Hoorn (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * not sure what happened here, but seems reasonable to delete. --SVTCobra 02:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * this could be speedied. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Water cooler/fromsitenotice
Removed, since nobody raised any objections, and it doesn't look like this serves any function any more. <font color="darkred" face="Georgia">tempo <font color="darkblue" face="Georgia">divalse  17:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy requested, declined by me. It doesn't look like this serves any function, but apparently it used to be linked from mediawiki:anonnotice. Just wanted to check that this really is useless before removing it. <font color="darkred" face="Georgia">tempo <font color="darkblue" face="Georgia">divalse  21:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments
 * See also my talk page for a discussion on this template. Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk) 09:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Votes

Category:Hilda Solis
I don't see why we need to have a category for every individual politician; this person is mentioned only in one article, is given a trivial mention in another, and appears in a list of names in the third. I'd like to note that no other member of Obama's cabinet has their own category here (for instance no Category:Timothy Geithner), so it doesn't seem appropriate to have this one. I don't think this category will receive much, if any, use. <font color="darkred" face="Georgia">tempo <font color="darkblue" face="Georgia">divalse  23:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments

 * It looks like consensus is strongly to keep, and having thought it over, I tend to agree with the below comments. I've withdrawn the DR and closed it. It would, however, be useful to have a guideline on this, to determine what level of notability one needs to have in order to have one's own category. <font color="darkred" face="Georgia">tempo <font color="darkblue" face="Georgia">divalse  14:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nominator. <font color="darkred" face="Georgia">tempo <font color="darkblue" face="Georgia">divalse  23:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * people-cats are very much useful for news. Perhaps we should be adding Category:Timothy Geithner instead of deleting this. As far as the claim that "no other member of Obama's cabinet has their own category," we do have Category:Joe Biden and Category:Hillary Clinton. We are only a few months into this administration, Hilda may generate more news. --SVTCobra 01:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * for similar reasons to SVTCobra. -Brian McNeil / talk 07:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * . We should however, make some kind of guideline on this one. There are many categories with only one article. We should either choose to make a category for every notable person that is mentioned in an article, or we should only have categories for those few that have a lot of articles. Currently there is no consistency. Van der Hoorn (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Major cabinet-level politicians should generally have their own categories. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to note, you voted twice already. Smile.png <font color="darkred" face="Georgia">tempo <font color="darkblue" face="Georgia">divalse  14:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Waste
Encyclopedic category, no real use on a news site. Well-nigh impossible to go through archives and apply, highly unlikely to be consistently followed from this point forward. --Brian McNeil / talk 06:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom. --Brian McNeil / talk 06:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Category:Environment is good enough to cover this. Also, usage of a Category:Waste can be very subjective. Britney Spears is a waste --SVTCobra 22:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah... Think of all the CPUs the silicon in her implants could have made :-P--Brian McNeil / talk 07:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Cobra sums it up nicely. Category:Environment can easily cover any articles on this topic. <font color="darkred" face="Georgia">tempo <font color="darkblue" face="Georgia">divalse  22:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. Van der Hoorn (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Asbestos map of Eastern Australia published
This article was marked with cleanup tags, later marked by as abandoned , and then the primary article-writer went on to self-publish it without a review =. Unfortunately this was not caught before the archiving process.

But the kicker is that the article discusses and uses promotional language promoting the work of a "Marc Hendrickx" - and the Wikinews article has as it sole contributor one. Cirt (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments

 * This is a very unfortunate case. The user name suggests that the writer of the majority of the sources is the same as the writer of the Wikinews article, a major violation of WN:COI. On the other hand, it has been published for nearly a year. (Flagged revisions were not yet in force, so the lack of peer reviewed is to be expected.) I haven't had the time to delve deeper into this, but is there any false or spammish in this article? (at a glance there doesn't appear to be.) If not, perhaps we should let it stand. If there are real problems with the article's content, then we should replace the page with a retraction. I don't think we should just "break the archive" and delete it. --SVTCobra 00:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, certainly the wording, style, and presentation of the article is not NPOV. Note the beginning of the 5th and 6th paragraphs: "Mr Hendrickx...", "Mr Hendrickx's research...", and finally, the last paragraph sounds sorta promo, The article “Naturally occurring asbestos in eastern Australia: a review of geological occurrence, disturbance and mesothelioma risk” can be accessed online from Environmental Geology, a Springer publication. Note also originally there was one source cited, the other sources seem to have been slapped on as an afterthought to get around single source, which shows the whole article is itself based on this guy's article, and written by him about his article... Cirt (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That is rather like spam. Zapping this is tempting, but I know from experience there is usually great resistance when "breaking the archive" comes up. I'd like to see what other Wikinewsies think we should do, as I am undecided. Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, well, you used the word "spam" first, not I. :P I don't think we should be in the business of encouraging or retaining spam material on the site. Cirt (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but as you say, the spam/promo stuff is in the last paragraph. The encouragement to read further in some other publication could be redacted without affecting the crux of the article. --SVTCobra 00:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am rather undecided on this too. One one hand, the article is certainly newsworthy, and a bit of rephrasing should remove the promotional material without significantly affecting the article. On the other side, the article is a gross violation of WN:COI. If the promotional comments can be removed, I would lean towards keeping it. Before casting a vote, though, I think I'd like to hear what others have to say. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  00:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is way too late to go around changing the text of the article itself in order to remove the promotional material, spam, self-promoting, and obvious conflict of interest. The best option at this point is deletion. Cirt (talk) 04:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * - I also note had brought up a problem with this article on its talk page back in June 2008, apparently that also went unaddressed . Cirt (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This news item has been linked to by a number of users. deleting it now after such a long time would cause more trouble. If WIKINEWS can't get its act together and properly manage contributions then you are to blame. Don't inconvenience other user with these petty deletion requests. On top of it all the article is actually newsworthy. DO NOT DELETE IT.
 * Comment from

This has now been online for nearly a year. The article has been cited elsewhere (www.bloggernews.net/117884). The article is newsworthy-people are actually interested in whether or not they live near an area of asbestos bearing rock. The article contains external references. I see no reason to delete it.

If WIKINEWS wants to encourage users to submit stories it should be a little more proactive in managing submissions as they are submitted and not after nearly a year. Retrospectively deleting news represents a somewhat Stalinesque attitude that is quite dangerous. What will you be deleting next. Obama's election win? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mhendrickx (talk • contribs)
 * Reply: The problem was started by the user that created this spam conflict of interest promotional piece that is an inappropriate usage of this project. Cirt (talk) 04:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply: The article is clearly not self promotional but as noted by SVTCobra it is "newsworthy". If judged newsworthy it should stand. The article has a basis in fact, it informs about an important scientific paper contains nothing false, and has been there for nearly a year. Therefore should stand unchanged. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mhendrickx (talk • contribs)
 * It "informs about a scientific paper" written by the author of the paper to promote the author of the paper, and is thus promotional and spam and an inappropriate usage of this website. If we allowed other authors to promote their works on this site in such a manner, being the sole contributor to the Wikinews articles about their works, and writing them in a promotional tone, this website would be nothing but a location for people to push out their spam. Cirt (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * does very little to promote th eauthor. It informs about a new study and promotes the subject and the associated paper. It could have been written in a much more self-promotional manner but wasn't. Considering the importance of maintaining the archive this is but a minor infraction.
 * Please sign your posts using: ~ "The importance of maintaining the archive" is outweighed by the importance not to have this website be a repository and venue for individuals to spam. Cirt (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Also note, that this article was published almost a year ago. Self publish, at the time, was allowed. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"Self publish, at the time, was allowed.-DragonFire1024" So what is the problem? On the whole this is nothing more than a small Storm in a small tea cup. But if you must....webpage wikinews Asbestos bb COI error doubleplusungood rectify.. . All in all you have provided some inspiration to revisit Orwell's 1984. ''The past is alterable. The past has never been altered.'' Good luck playing with history guys.--Mhendrickx (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC) By the way there does not appear to be anything about COI on the criteria for deletion page[]. Have you considered rule 1 on this? if in doubt don't delete. Why not rewrite? ''The past is alterable. The past has never been altered.'' --Mhendrickx (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid a rewrite of the article would most likely be impossible, as it would violate our archival policy, which basically states we can not make significant content changes to an article after it has been locked and archived. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  00:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Having looked through the deletion policy there does not seem to be grounds for deletion on this. COI is not listed. The article is hardly self promotion and it has been noted several times as newsworthy and linked to externally. Still I leave the past to be altered as you see fit.--Mhendrickx (talk) 00:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but there is also WN:COI, which essentially points out that using the project in this fashion is incompatible with the aims of Wikinews. Cirt (talk) 01:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

So to clarify: No grounds for deletion because COI is not listed as grounds for deletion, item is regarded as newsworthy, self publish was allowed at itme of submission and archive will be unduly compromised. No attempt was made to contact author prior to deletion request, no atempt has been made to change the article. No mention of COI made at time of writing. I think it is unfair to back date the rules on this and as such the article should stand as written. I am not sure how wikinews is policing articles at present but it does appear that the submission policy has changed since this article was written. If I had been aware at time of writing This would not have been submitted. I hope this is clarified for new users wishing to contribute to wikinews. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mhendrickx (talk • contribs)
 * At the time the article was published, Template:Review was called Template:Ready, but it clearly stated Please check if it complies with Wikinews policies and guidelines. As the article is a form of blatant self-promotional spam, the article at that time did not comply, and should have been marked as develop, as per the template's instructions at that time. Again, self-promotional spam is not the purpose of Wikinews. Cirt (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * - Most interesting that this SPA account, has done nothing else during its time here on Wikinews since its first contribution to this project in June 2008 - save for writing a self-promotional spam article, and subsequently complaining about its possible deletion. Cirt (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * we're talking about the article namespace here - and an archived part of it. I feel under no circumstances should the page turn to a redlink. I believe it should be replaced with some sort of notice, I suggest delete and recreate as This page has been removed from Wikinews due to being self-reporting by the author of the source report and thus a clear violation of the project's conflict of interest policy. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My first preference is deletion, but if consensus is not to delete, then I would not object to this proposal. Cirt (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is hardly self promotional and clearly is in line with the aims of the project "Welcome to Wikinews:The free news source you can write!" I reiterate based on comments above: Newsworthy, COI not grounds for deletion, self publish allowed, no mention of COI in initial reviews. Would accept comment on page that the article has been self reported.--Mhendrickx (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Repetitive single-purpose account is repetitive. Cirt (talk) 11:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that this "project" makes up rules as it goes along and decides to censor news based on an emotive response. I look forward to seeing how this Orwellian project develops over time. The concept of news by consensus is certainly an interesting one but seems to be a product of the times. Quite sad really...Still it has inspired a new novel. News of which, ironically, may one day make it news reported on wikinews --Mhendrickx (talk) 09:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * , as nom. Cirt (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * , self-promotional. Lankiveil (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC).
 * , newsworthy, time on line-has been cited elsewhere
 * with a notice. I do not believe this should be deleted due to the newsworthy aspect. However, Mhendrickx, should he ever attempt a self-serving promotional stunt like this again, should be greeted with a lengthy ban. Wikinews is nobody's personal soapbox or PR machine. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The language used in the article reads almost like an advertisment. I don't think we should be retaining promotional material on the site, even if it has some element of newsworthiness and has been online for almost a year. I don't see how a correction notice would help matters much, if the text remains as-is. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  14:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Was considering to vote neutral/abstain, but above arguments convinced me deletion is the correct course. If we could alter the article to remove the promotional stuff, then I would like to keep it, but unfortunately that violates WN:ARCHIVE policy, so there is really not much else to do other than delete. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  14:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * . Mr. Hendri"ckx" wants us to get our house in order? Fine, we'll do that. Starting with deleting his article. Mike Halterman (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Move and recreate with notice etc per brianmc. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Violates WN:COI per above comments. Also, it violates WN:NPOV because no other scientific view is presented other than that of User:Mhendrickx, who won no friends with his arrogant comments about how he beat the system. However, since we will be breaking the archive, we will need a retraction notice in place of the article. It should not be forgotten that other websites mirror Wikinews in accordance with our license, such as Mister Info which has this article. --SVTCobra 14:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you think of the wording for the notice, suggested above by  ? Cirt (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We have a retraction notice on this article, Chinese submarine "embarrasses" U.S. Navy, so something similar might do. I believe Brian McNeil is talking about a warning to the reader, not a retraction, as he voted to keep. --SVTCobra 15:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I prefer the wording above by Brianmc:
 * I suggest delete and recreate as This page has been removed from Wikinews due to being self-reporting by the author of the source report and thus a clear violation of the project's conflict of interest policy.
 * Cirt (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, you meant way above. (Sorry I didn't click your link) Yes, that would do, too. --SVTCobra 21:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, good, agreed. Cirt (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * per nomination. Whilst we need to appreciate that policies and guidelines along with the general attitude of the community will evolve over time, it seems obvious that this article wouldn't have been accepted as appropriate had a proper discussion taken place. The conflict of opinion issues are overwhelming despite the newsworthiness. The fact that this article has been around for the length of time it has doesn't mean we shouldn't remove it since it reflects badly on the project. I can however accept that simply deleting the article might be unhelpful and so I would support the retraction approach as per Chinese submarine "embarrasses" U.S. Navy. Adambro (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * per nom. This is a major violation of COI that should never have slipped through the system. I would also accept a retraction. --<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif"> Sken   my talk 16:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * -- Shakata Ga Nai ^_^ 20:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Prom
Encyclopedic category that isn't very news-like; may not be appropriate for Wikinews. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  22:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments

 * Let me just say that I am new to Wikinews, so I was not really sure on the categorization methods here. My rationale for creating the category, however, was that many articles probably get written about crazy stuff that happens at high school proms, and categorizing it by that might be a good idea. If I was wrong, and that isn't how things are usually done, please go ahead and delete the category. NuclearWarfare (talk) 00:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  22:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * just does not seem like an appropriate category, doesn't fit into any topic main cats. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * , per nom. If we already had 10 or so existing articles that could fit into the category, maybe (at least that has been the traditional line of thinking for categories in general) but this one seems more of an en.wikipedia sort of category than a en.wiknews one. Cirt (talk) 01:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Too narrow. Prom in this sense is restricted to United States and Canada. This makes the category encyclopedic and ought be removed. If, however, Wikinews coverage of high school proms expands greatly in the future, this Cat can be recreated. --SVTCobra 01:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

U.S. pork plant in Mexico near confirmed case of swine flu
I believe most people have probably seen this by now. Per comments on the talk, this fails NPOV by trying to lead readers to a conclusion not backed by the facts. It is also an old article which has been repeatedly date-bumped and sources added with little or nothing taken from them to game the system and prevent it being labelled stale. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments

 * The argument being made that this leading/insinuation is appropriate is that lots of other news coverage has made an issue of this. Can someone cogently explain that not only is correlation not equal to causation, but that many journalists will make erroneous calls on things like this because it fits their agenda as opposed to being factually accurate. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I too have seen this story and disliked its nature. Computerjoe (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (I had failed it at a review). Cirt (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * as it stands now it is both stale and in violation of NPOV. Nonetheless, the latest source that was added (this Time article) could form the basis of an interesting article about the lawsuit. --SVTCobra 22:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Article is stale and doesn't meet WN:NPOV. It is too late now to try and rework the story, as it is so old. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  22:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * per all other reasons, and it was previously deleted. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * per above. Calebrw (talk) 02:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * the dots didn't connect when it was fresh, nothing significant has been added since. --Killing Vector (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Passengers on Air France Flight 447 sent text messages to family members before plane disappeared
I consider it dangerous for us to base an entire article on suggestions that passengers on the flight might have sent text messages before the plane disappeared. It is entirely based upon the comments by someone named "Ronaldo Jenkins" to Jornal de Notícias but a Google search doesn't really turn up a great deal about this individual. This article effectively only has a single source, Jornal de Notícias, for what is its main subject. I think we should treat this with much greater caution. Whilst recognising that some aircraft are equipped with technology to enable passengers to use mobile phones in-flight, comments on Comments:Passengers on Air France Flight 447 sent text messages to family members before plane disappeared highlight some of the technical issues that make this story more doubtful.

It is perhaps worth highlighting an incident that happened after the crash of Helios Airways Flight 522 which the Wikipedia article describes: "News media widely reported that shortly before the crash a passenger sent a text message indicating that one of the flight crew had become blue in the face, or roughly translated as "The pilot is dead. Farewell, my cousin, here we're frozen." Police later arrested Nektarios-Sotirios Voutas, who admitted that he had made up the story and given several interviews in order to get attention". I think we should learn the lessons from that incident that we should treat claims like this with great caution. I therefore suggest this article is deleted. Adambro (talk) 12:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I note that Air France according to this were trialling a service to allow their passengers to send and receive text messages in flight on their European routes. If anyone can find any evidence to suggest this flight might have had this service it would be helpful but I'm not sure it would convince me of the validity of this story though because the lack of verifiability is the major issue for me. Adambro (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * See reason in comment section. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Appears to fail WN:CG definition of "What is 'news'?". There isn't a sufficiently reliable source available - it all comes down to one person's report from what would be a highly emotionally charged situation being re-reported, with critical details missing, such as the timestamps shown on the messages.  This is over and above the issue of the situation being profoundly unlikely and there being a history of similar situations in the past turning out to be hoaxes.  If the messages existed, would the authorities not have wanted the details such as timestamps to help pinpoint the search area and any other value they could add to the investigation?  Far too many doubts about the authenticity of this report for it to be here (doubts which would be allayed if the requirements of WN:CG were met). -- Rob.au (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This is this user's first post to Wikinews. Cirt (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * How is this relevant? -- Rob.au (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Its relevant in that you managed to make an excellent first contribution to wikinews with your comment - Note also that that was Cirt's gazillioth post on wikinews and he still hasn't caught the spirit of what wiki is on about - keep on posting Rob! --Ransu (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Even if this turns out to not be the case, then we quoted the proper sources that said it. Also note that the Brazilian officials confirmed the messages were sent. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 13:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Both articles cite only one source, Ronaldo Jenkins, described only as "O presidente do sindicato das empresas aeronáuticas do Brasil". -- Rob.au (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe Google Translate is letting me down but it doesn't even seem to name the organisation that this individual Ronaldo Jenkins is supposed to belong to. This would seem to me to be yet another cause for concern as to the likely validity of the story. Adambro (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See my comment below. He's a technical adviser with SNEA, who have posted a clear notice on their website stating that the report is false, meaning it's confirmed fake. -- Rob.au (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if this turns out to be a hoax, deletion is not the proper course to take as this has been up for so long. Instead, we should apply a correction notice to inform readers. (Note that the custom has been to apply a correction notice to an article that has been proven to be false, not simply delete it.) <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  14:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe this is newsworthy and has reliable sources. -Meekel (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The source of this article doesn't appear to be reliably sourced, and the fact that it hasn't been picked up by reliable publications seems to indicate that. Also, the incident just doesn't ring true -- wouldn't the people have said a bit more than they did? Mveric (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would clarify this by saying that although it has been picked up by respected publications like The Guardian, they are treating the claims with an appropriate degree of caution by describing the reports as unconfirmed and it forming just a small part of a much larger article. Adambro (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I can believe the messages are that short. I can probably claim to be the only erson here who has been on an aircraft that appeared likely to crash, although my prospects were rather better as we were over fields in something vaguely aproaching wings level. It did occur to me to send the stereotypical 'I love you'. I settled for preparing for evacuation instead; I had one of the better seats. In the end we made it to a runway. Strangely, it was only frightening some time after the event. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 15:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on only a single report with a source whose origin has been declared as false by an official organization the report claims its based on. Also the report is both dubious and implausable. Keeping the article is potentially humiliating to wikinews. --Ransu (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * When it comes to synthesis of sources, it's not up to us to decide what is true or not; it's up to us to report what is being reported by others. When people write their own journalism, they can decide what they would choose to say or not. Don't blur the lines. Mike Halterman (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 'its up to us to report on what is being reported' ... yes, and its up to us to make informed judgments which ones we should pass onto wikinews - the internet is a maelstrom of garbage (if you haven't noticed) - by your criteria, we'd end up reporting on everything and the kitchen sink ... no! we have criteria on what is newsworthy and trustworthy, to report on - when we exercise caution and selection on what is reported - not jumping on every first report, considering if the stories are plausible, credible etc. we are being true journalists! the source that the paper refers to has said they never said such thing - that is a clear cut case of false reporting then - why should we not be able to make that judgement? are we mere automata, worthy of being replaced by a bot? think about it - thinking is good! --Ransu (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no valid reason for deletion. We can use the correction template as mentioned above. Had this never been published - and perhaps it never should have - then it should be deleted. There is precedent for using correction; see my own mistake with Ukranian manufacturer preparing to sell Adolf Hitler dolls. That was bigger in that many major news sites reported this and so the hoax was a story in its own right, and I don't suggest doing the same here, but nonetheless that's how we do it. We are better than sweeping it under the carpet. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 15:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've explained on the article's talk page why we should delete hoaxes rather than keeping them. It provides no benefits to do so but continues to highlight our error in publishing the article in the first place and so damages our credibility. Adambro (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Deleting articles with nothing left behind is what reduces our credibility. I like to think we are better than that. We can explain that we knew we had a hoax, instead of sweep it under the carpet. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Deleting articles such as these without as much a trace would only damage our credibility, accountability, and reputation. It would make it look as if we were trying to sweep our mistakes under the rug and try to pretend they never happened. I believe we should inform readers that the information that they have been presented with has turned out to be incorrect or false. There are certainly no "benefits" to be obtained from not deleting the article, but removing it is still a worse choice in my opinion. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  00:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * per at 16:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC). Calebrw (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Our article says "According to the Portuguese newspaper Jornal de Notícias" which is absolutely true. It was reported. However, it would be appropriate to have a follow-up article that explains that the earlier reports have now been denied. --SVTCobra 21:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The piece of new was already denied by the source the Brazilian SEA.

Comments

 * I am opposed to deletion as many thousands have read this already. If it is proven to be incorrect a notice should be placed on the article, not deletion - which seems like Adambro's hammer. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The article has been published for around 16 hours now and for as long as it is published our readers will of course continue to read it. Surely though, it is in our interests to delete it now due to the verifiability concerns rather than later when it does turn out to be a hoax. The more readers who see this then later discover it to be false, the more our reputation is harmed. In the rush to publish this article, we don't seem to have treated the comments one individual made to one newspaper with an adequate degree of caution. I'd be less concerned if this was a brief mention of the reports from Jornal de Notícias in another article but this entire article is focused on this and that in my view is giving the reports far too much weight. This story, effectively based upon a single source, should never have been published. I'd rather many more "thousands" didn't read this until we can be more confident about it. Adambro (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you even read the sources? There are 2 sources. One in Norway and Portugal. If anyone can provide sources to say this article is not true, then be my guest. Until then all this talk about it being a hoax is pure speculation and nothing more. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 13:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/01/air-france-crash-passengers The Guardian: Contact with the plane was lost five hours and 20 minutes after it took off. Unconfirmed reports in a Portuguese newspaper said passengers on board senttext messages saying "I love you" and "I am scared" to relatives when they realised their plane was in trouble. A report in the Jornal de Noticias cited a Brazilian official from an aviation union. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 13:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha! I'm rather amused that my suggestion that this could be a hoax is being branded "pure speculation". If there was any hard evidence that this was a hoax I'd have speedy deleted it by now. Of course I'm speculating that it could be a hoax but I'd have thought you'd at least be able to recognise that there are a few elements of this that are concerning. Whilst DragonFire1024 mentions two sources, and more recently the Guardian article, he fails to note that they are all simply based upon the Jornal de Notícias article. None of them are able to provide any independent confirmation of the claims. DF says in his keep vote that we should "Also note that the Brazilian officials confirmed the messages were sent" but there is no also, the story is only based upon the comments on one individual which some are calling a "Brazilian official" but a Google search doesn't turn up much when you look for information about the individual which makes it less credible. There is simply this one person making this claim and to write an article based upon this isn't appropriate in my view considering we don't seem able to establish the notability of him.
 * I note that the Guardian article deals with this by way of a very brief mention, describing them as "unconfirmed reports". This is how we should be dealing with this also, rather than dedicating an article to the subject. Adambro (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Highly implausible that anyone has managed to send a SMS from the airplane at that distance and altitude from terrestrial mobile phone network (base stations). And currently Air France does not operate a mobile phone service on its transcontinental flights (the last trial they had ended in 2008). Unless these people had satellite phones (which are not allowed to be used in flight!) I doubt very much this news story is true ... (there are multiple possibilities: the report maybe genuine, but the people claiming they received SMS from their loved ones might have been delusional/lying etc.). As for deletion from Wikinews for now: any dubious news story based on only ONE original source should not be published until further reporting emerges (we are not professional journalists here, if Reuters or the BBC picks up this story, that would mean they would have checked its source throughoutly). --Ransu (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * After doing some more Googling, Ronaldo Jenkins appears to be associated with the association of airline organisaions known as SNEA - http://www.snea.com.br/ - Upon arriving at this page there is a clear link to a notice debunking the article - http://www.snea.com.br/noticias/not136.htm
 * Pardon my portuguese but it seems they are saying their official Ronaldo Jenkins was not the source of this story, and as I said already above, they too consider it highly implausible for the passengers to have been able to send text messages from the airplane in the middle of the atlantic without some sort of satellite phones. Its hard to 'debunk' the story - but that should not be the criteria here - the source is a single source - therefore not worth a wikinews article. I suggest move to immediate deletion (you can make a new article if the story turns out to be true later!) - for now wikinews is in danger of being cited as a source of potentially false/hoax news story... --Ransu (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It mentions nothing of the sort of anything being false. In fact, the article clearly states it was "almost impossible" to send the messages. It does not say it didn't happen. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 14:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It does confirm though that the reports were just unconfirmed rumours without a reliable source. --194.105.255.161 (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The notice says more than it being "almost impossible" - it explicitly denies the source of the information. -- Rob.au (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop flogging a dead horse and delete the article already. You've got nothing but a SINGLE source whose report has been officially declared as FALSE by an official organization on their official website. The longer this goes on the more humiliating it is... --Ransu (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I will not be a party to misquotes. If you want to use the word false, or untrue or the likes, then find a source that uses that. Until then, saying its false is completely misleading. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 15:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you not getting this yet? Nothing supports the text message claim! The only source for the original story (and the only story) has been withdrawn. The theoretical technical possibility of text messaging from an airliner is completely besides the point. --194.105.255.161 (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A paper reports that SNEA said something - and SNEA says they were not the source - isn't that kind of the definition of 'false'? Of course nobody can ever categorically prove that text messages weren't sent - but that's not the point - what we can prove is that SNEA has said that they were not the source - the paper reported FALSE information! - what's it gonna take to convince you? Are you suggesting SNEA are lying? ... i think some Portuguese tabloid is the suspect here... --Ransu (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually a different representative other than the one who made the initial claim said it was "almost impossible." And I don't know if this is a tabloid, and I am not about to make claims that it is. It is not our place to do so. I am not going to argue all day about this. If an alternate source can be found then by all means. But until then, the statement says what it says. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 15:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is that there is now no verified source for the article - we have verified that the source cited in the newspaper reports is false. That makes the Wikinews article unsustainable. -- Rob.au (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, stop using weasel words. Is the word false mentioned anywhere? No. Is the word untrue? No. Is the word hoax? No. It says 'almost impossible', which correct me if I am wrong, again, does NOT mean its NOT possible. And there are verified sources, 2. As mentioned in the article and here in the comments (RE The Guardian). So 3 if you count that. Again I will not be a party to weasel words. Say what it says, or don't use the source at all. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 15:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd ask you to stop accusing me of using weasel words. There are no verified sources.  The two sources you are relying on are now verified as incorrect, so cannot be relied upon.  The Guardian article is of no use to you because it openly states it wasn't able to verify the report.  We quite literally have no validated source for this article. -- Rob.au (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well you don't seem to understand that the article quote the newspaper. Which is a source, and last I checked, still there. And there is no verification of it being incorrect. I mentioned above that there is nothing that says its false. I am not going to comment on this again, as I said what I needed to say. The SNEA statement says what it says (almost impossible), and that cannot be changed, no matter how much you or anyone wants it to. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are compeltely misconsturing the SNEA statement. The two newspaper articles state that they were told by an SNEA representative that text messages existed.  The SNEA has clearly and openly stated that did not say any such thing to the newspaper.  They say the newspaper presented the idea to them and they dismissed it.  So who saw the text messages?  How can the newspaper articles be used?  Please remember that being in a newspaper article is not sufficient to be a source.  It has to be verifiable.  Those articles fail the verification test. -- Rob.au (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Unindent. I don't know who saw the messages, and so far as I know no on knows. And what you are saying is basically if we cannot confirm everything in any source then its not verifiable which is totally ridiculous. That is like saying I use a Reuters source, but because I cannot track down a quote that someone said, example is exclusive article, then its not usable. Some papers, sites and etc use exclusive reports. I doubt highly, that three sources, including the Guardian would intentionally report false information. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources you are relying on say that the SNEA source had access to the relatives and confirmed the text messages existed. The SNEA statement says they didn't say any such thing to the newspaper, but rather the newspaper came to them and the SNEA dismissed the theory.  This leaves us with no verifiable source that claims the messages existed and it now fails the required standard for inclusion here. -- Rob.au (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * DF, Google Translate says that the first paragraph says "Unlike what was disclosed by a Portuguese publication, not part of the technical director of SNEA, Ronaldo Jenkins, the information that the passengers of flight AF 447 Air France have sent messages to the cell when the family noticed problems with the aircraft." What do you think this all means? Adambro (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well here is something: “Some relatives and friends of victims have received that message, by phone, with phrases like ‘I love you’ or ‘I’m afraid’, and even telephone calls warning that something wrong was happening and feared the worst,” said the chairman of Union of Airline, Ronaldo Jenkins in Rio, according to Jornal de Noticias. . According to this, they called their relatives. Maybe this was what he meant by the messages. Nonetheless I am still not convinced its not true. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Your point being? You've simply found another news article based upon the obviously flawed report by Jornal de Notícias. So? The question is not whether it is true that any passengers contacted anyone by any means, rather whether we can find any credible reports to support this. That isn't possible as it stands. Adambro (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I see now, this guy was obviously not speaking on behalf of SNEA...people do that sometimes, but it doesn't mean they are wrong. Its like the recent events in Iran. They accuse the US of being behind their attacks. Now the US denies it, but are we going to step up and say for 100% that its not true? No. All we can report is so and so denies such claims That is exactly what we did here. So if this guy spoke on an unofficial capacity then there is nothing we can do about that. But again doesn't mean its not true. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I can accept your point. However, where the claims were already questionable and then this statement from SNEA comes along and rebuffs the newspaper's report, then there isn't a lot of solid information to go on in my view. It would be a very different story though if a number of different news agencies were running this story and had some independent verification and then SNEA produced a statement like this, perhaps to distance themselves from the comments of their employee, but that doesn't seem to me to be the case here. The weak information to support this article is further weakened by the SNEA statement. Adambro (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Other options

 * Do I waste my time here? This should not be deleted, but withdrawn, i.e. the page with a notice that the story was debunked. Thousands have read it, if they come back they should be duly informed it was wrong, not presented with the incredible vanishing news story. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've explained on the article's talk page why we should delete hoaxes rather than keeping them. It provides no benefits to do so but continues to highlight our error in publishing the article in the first place and so damages our credibility. Adambro (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See my comment above. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * BRS, is there a procedure or policy for journalistic 'corrections' or 'withdrawals' on wikinews? For the moment this section has two choices: Keep or Delete - and unfortunately 'keep' implies maintaining some credibility for the story ... if the story turns out to be a clear hoax, a notable one especially - then we could have a valid news report about that - but having a news story - with no credible sources, is unacceptable ... I'm all for a 'third' option treatment, because as the internet media grows, so too does peoples hunger for immediate information - and places like wikinews, with no permanent professional journalists or editorial power, will have no means or even time to keep checking the stories that come floating around - there needs to be a criteria for a credible source - the number of them needed for verifiability - and a procedure for when things turn out like this: false or mistakes sources, or even withdrawal or admission by a source that the story isn't what it was reported to be. --Ransu (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The options here are not just keep/delete black and white. Many times an option will be to keep but take some other action. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)That has been the procedure we used for the only completely false article I can think of - Ukranian manufacturer preparing to sell Adolf Hitler dolls. To clarify, 'keep' does not need to mean 'keep it and maintain it is accurate' it merely means 'don't delete'. I am indeed in favour of the third option, that of commenting the article is probably wrong but not deleting it. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Can I just point out that while I personally believe the SNEA, the mere fact they denounce does not make a hoax. What we can and should say is that SNEA denies giving the statement and gave the expert opinion that it is highly unlikely this is possible. We genrally cannot take sides except with the most extreme of viewpoints - so extreme that I can't actually think of any examples, except perhaps refering to convicted crimminals as such even when they maintain innocence. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For me the question is more along the lines of how widely reported the incorrect information was. As far as I can see, it did not spread very far at all.  There are some isolated examples of mainstream English language media reporting it, but in doing so these have highlighted the lack of verification, so don't support inclusion here.  By and large, most outlets simply didn't run the story.  To me it therefore doesn't seem to be necessary to have it as a keep/retraction... it's simply a fairly isolated report that turned out to be wrong.  Wikinews is a dynamic place - it jumped on board early... probably a bit too early but that happens - however it has turned out to be something with no verifiable source once we were able to verify it.  In my mind, without wide coverage making it worthy of keeping as debunked, that means it just shouldn't be here... under WN:CG is doesn't appear to be news.  I also note the line that says "To help guard against possible mistakes by news sources and to help establish a neutral point of view, editors are encouraged to find multiple sources on an issue, and fact-check those sources." Of course in this case we had just two sources, both quoting the one source, which then failed a fact check.  What are people's thoughts with respect to that policy? -- Rob.au (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My thoughts on that policy are that it defines what the correction template was made for - we got it wrong, and we have a duty to explain to our readers what went wrong. How wide the report was doesn't matter. That we reported it does, that our readers read it, that matters. We cannot brush hoaxes/errors under the carpet. That removes accountability - something I thought we prided ourselves on. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The correction template says it should generally only be used on article at least a day old (suggesting the article should otherwise simply be "fixed")... this article isn't that old yet. I tend to prefer to discuss contentious issues with respect to policies, but I gather there just isn't on this topic. -- Rob.au (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad the focus seems to be moving towards how we handle this situation rather than users flogging the dead horse that is the argument that there is any credibility left in this story. I'd disagree with Blood Red Sandman's comments though. We're not been dishonest to our readers to delete this, rather we're not prolonging the damage to our credibility and more than has already happened. Anyone who knew about the article before it was deleted will be able to see in the deletion log why it was deleted and find these discussions if they are really bothered about it. I don't see how it benefits our readers to maintain these articles and deletion would seem to be inline with the hoax template and the speedy deletion criteria. Both of which will perhaps need amending if we aren't going to simply deleted hoaxes or similarly unverifiable articles. We shouldn't allow the reputation of Wikinews to continue to suffer due to the mistakes of a few users; the user who published this and anyone else involved in writing it. An article being published shouldn't be immune to dispute. Adambro (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are utterly at odds with the opinion of BRS and myself as to what is honourable and respectable here. This has been up for the best part of a news cycle, you're proposing doing something I'd expect of The Sun or The News of the World. I.e. "Whopsie! One of our main first edition stories was bollocks!", "Just drop it and pretend it never happened". That's Dewey defeats Truman territory. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually this story, the Wikinews one, was picked up by a good deal of secondary sites. Just do a google search. So to say this article has not gone far is really not true. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And also, i am against, and will maintain that this is NOT a hoax. To use that word is ridiculous and misleading. I also find it hilarious that after all this, has anoyne even bothered to e-mail or call SNEA? I still maintain that the statement says what it says, "almost impossible". I don't understand how that can be any clearer. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sandman's comments above. I feel that it is our duty to tell our readers that the information that was presented to them was incorrect or false. Simply deleting it wouldn't do the trick, as not many people will guess to check the deletion log to see what happened to the article. Perhaps a proper course to take in this instance would be to blank the article of its previous content and simply replace it with a correction notice. That way, it is visible to readers that the article was inaccurate, and yet the actual content of the article will be hidden. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  17:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The only way I can accept DragonFire1024's last statement is that there's enough attribution to sources in the article to say "we reported on someone else's hoax/mistake". We have more than the duty to stop the perpetuation of the story as Adambro demands, we have a duty to correct the misapprehension many have left Wikinews with. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Whilst Brianmc calls my comments about this issue "demands", it is probably more accurate to describe them as suggestions as to what I think we should do. Brianmc seems to have a habit of using overly provocative terms to describe other users' comments.
 * I recognise that the consensus seems to be that we should keep this article. Whilst I obviously strongly disagree with this, we should now decide how exactly we are going to reformat it to recognise the complete lack of credibility of the story. I note that DragonFire1024 continues to focus on the last paragraph of the SNEA statement and has yet to actually consider what the first paragraph might mean. Adambro (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It wasn't demands? You decided what you thought should be done and continued to argue against a more nuanced solution? I don't call a spade a "metal earth moving implement", you formed it as a demand.
 * The questions to be answered now are, the text of the correction or hoax notice - including do we call it a correction, a hoax, what? (I don't have any favourite here, some detail on who the source reports claimed said something and the refutation is probably best). Do we keep the original article text, or - as I'd prefer - remove it and have a hard link to the last non-disputed version? Post-mortem actions are, where in policy, do we need a new template, &c. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We probably shouldn't need to resort to yet another new template. correction should be made appropriate if it isn't yet. A "hoax" is an easy term to describe a false article but I suppose technically no one might have intend to spread misinformation, the story might simply be the product of crossed wires so perhaps we shouldn't call it a hoax. I too would like to see the article text removed even if we don't go to the extent I would like and delete the article but I'm not sure what non-disputed version you'd link back to. I raised my concerns with the article even before being made aware of the SNEA statement which seems to be the final nail in the coffin. Adambro (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If we are going to use the correction template, then removing text, any text is totally pointless. It would defeat the purpose of the template altogether. My issues is simple: The statement does not directly mention, according to what translations we can get, that this was false or untrue. Yes its very unlikely that the messages were sent, but it still doesn't mean it didn't happen, at least according to the statement. I agree that saying that this is a hoax would mean we discredit any and all sources, and basically are calling them liars and that they intentionally published totally false information. I do not think that is the case. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how using the correction template and removing text would be completely pointless. How it is worded doesn't stop us doing this whatsoever. You seem to again not make any real attempts to interpret the first paragraph of the SNEA statement. I'll happily admit to not understanding Portuguese but from the translations I've seen, my impression is that the first pargraphs says that despite the claims from the newspaper, their technical director didn't make the comments, and that the second states the position of SNEA that the organisation considers any such claims to be unlikely. Whilst I've said that it might not be appropriate to call this a hoax, to do so wouldn't be to brand any of the publishers liars, rather it would be to say that we think they have been misled which is completely different. Adambro (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No the statement didn't say He never said that. It merely doesn't back up what he said and says its highly unlikely. Lets be realistic: He said what he said, and I incredibly doubt that the agency would just pull a quote of thin air and make up something he didn't say. It doesn't make any sense. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought we had determined the agency did deny he said that, and that SNEA said the idea was brought to them and they flatly rejected it? Regardless, though, I think it worth noting on the article that the only expert opinion given is that it is highly unlikely. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Credibility
I don't believe this template is needed. According to a discussion several years ago here, it appears as though it was intended for use on articles where the credibility was not assured. Since we don't publish articles that have no credited sources and strive to be as credible as possible, this template seems redundant. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  23:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  23:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * though it could be redirected to . DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * --SVTCobra 00:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * --Brian McNeil / talk 07:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No conceivable use for the template as we don't accept anything like what it was intended for. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * An article with concerns about the credibility of its content wouldn't be published in the first place, if these concerns were raised later then correction would be the appropriate template. Adambro (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Urgent
This was one of Wikinews' first templates, made way back in November 2004. With the addition of breaking} and breaking review, it has become redundant (and it hasn't been used for ages). I suggest we either delete or redirect this to breaking review.

Votes

 * Redirect per nom. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  23:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect seems most apropriate, I agree. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect is the best option I believe. Although if it's not been used for a while then maybe delete as it is redundant anyway? --92.233.168.83 (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC) --Meekel (TalkToMe) 13:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Breaking review Adambro (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't forget to fix Article stage tags if you do. Uncle G (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

2008 Summer Olympic - Women's Soccer: Matchday 1
This, apparently, was supposed to be a prepared story, but the Wikinews:Story preparation/ prefix was never added. Now that the Olympics have been over for months, it no longer serves any use. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  19:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  19:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * uncompleted, still flagged prepared. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * no point in keeping it around, and things like this should be speedyable... --Killing Vector (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (speedy). Since never published, I think it can be deleted without a request. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Labour councillor accused of tampering with David Cameron's Wikipedia article
Closed as DELETE. The one week is not completely up yet, but as the story is now very stale and abandoned, and the author has requested deletion himself, I see no reason to prolong this any longer. It is impossible it will be published at this point. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  14:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Navel-gazing -- Shakata Ga Nai ^_^ 21:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * per nom -- Shakata Ga Nai ^_^ 21:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * per nom. I'm not very active over here at Wikinews, so I'm not sure if my "vote" counts, but it just doesn't seem newsworthy. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Enough coverage by mainstream media. Computerjoe (talk) 21:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's an ongoing controversy, not a news event. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment only: Has received a lot of coverage in the national press and some in the international press  (who thought the matter sufficiently newsworthy) . Quality of research is superior to those sources and does a very good job of correcting factual inaccuracies which caused damage, and does this in a balanced and technically competent way.  Esowteric | Talk  21:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As interesting as Steve Davis. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously, as I authored the thing. Argumentum ad Jimbonem: Jimbo Wales is aware of the story – I asked him if it was okay to put his quote in, and he said yes on his WP user page. The arbcom and Boothroyd have been invited to add a statement as well; so far, neither of them have responded. Like it or not, this thing made it into the papers, even in New Zealand and Italy (!), who thought it interesting enough, but made a complete mess of reporting it. The real story should be told. And my bad if my news writing ability evokes Steve Davis. Any help appreciated. Change to . Enough of the drama; those interested (i.e. Wikipedians) probably know the real story by now, the rest ain't interested. --Jayen466 (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Your writing is pretty good for something that I think is a non-story. That's the issue. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a niche topic. People who read IT blogs and the like may be interested in it, and perhaps some UK Labour supporters; the general population will yawn. Perhaps getting the word "Labour" in the title might help. --Jayen466 (talk) 11:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Renamed accordingly. Header above changed to reflect new title. --Jayen466 (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Argumentum ad Jimbonem doesn't work on this wiki. He carries little weight here; he isn't even a sysop. Computerjoe (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It was kind of humorous. --Jayen466 (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * , echo problems with this as raised above by, also a problem is WN:NPOV. Cirt (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not what you said in the AfD over at WP, where you argued Keep for the same topic. --Jayen466 (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Different site, different guidelines. In one case there is w:WP:NOTE, but here the article is being used violating WN:NPOV. Cirt (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you object to the mention of the Scientology case, or is there any other area in which you see NPOV concerns? --Jayen466 (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That does seem like COATRACK, yes. I will note that problems with the article, including WN:NPOV, have been raised at the article's talk page, prior to being raised here. Cirt (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if there is consensus, we can always take these comments out. It just seemed like a good idea, while we were at it, to address perceived shortcomings in media reporting of the Scientology decision as well, as noted in the WP Signpost and discussed, as far as the erroneous LA Times article is concerned, here. The cases are not unrelated; if the Scientology case had not brought a spotlight on the arbitration committee in late May, I doubt Sam Blacketer's resignation would have been mainstream news a week later. --Jayen466 (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not surprised that problems have been raised; I have not written an article from scratch here before. However, I do think that there is a story to tell, however inadequately I may have told it, and that Wikinews is the only place where it can be told. --Jayen466 (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikinews is not the Wikipedia Signpost. Cirt (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I have taken out the comments on media reporting of the Scientology case and generally tried to tighten the text up a bit. --Jayen466 (talk) 09:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with other remove votes. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem to meet WN:CG and newsworthiness guidelines. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  23:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As much as I think this story should be told, it's grown stale and it really does fail WN:SG. However I can't bring myself to say keep or delete. Calebrw (talk) 03:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Enough coverage by mainstream media. Possibly change title though to falsely accused 08:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * — Sorry to pop-in from en:wp like this, but I was just directly offered the link on w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Blacketer controversy. Looking at yon page I see pretty much what's getting run over with a truck on the 800lb Gorilla. As I've said over there, this is protracted wiki-drama. I'm not sure of the norms here, so, to whomever closes this, ya, I know I'm not a regular and don't know the ropes here. Be warned though, give the en:wp-mob a precedent and they'll be back again, and again. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * per Jack Merridew. I understand Wikinews procedures are not the same as en-Wikipedia so presumably the closer of this debate will disregard this opinion if it is inappropriate to give weight to it. If it is thought essential to 'put the record straight' as regards the editing of David Cameron, then I suggest that someone write up a special investigation and submit it to the Wikipedia Signpost instead. May I also say that even if it accords with policy, it is still highly inappropriate for en-Wikipedia user Bondegezou to contribute to the article. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikinews has a policy on conflict of interest, where it is lacking is in "institutional conflict of interest", i.e. reporting on other Wikimedia projects. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Terima kasih, Sam. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that I am Bondegezou on en-Wikipedia. Sorry, I forgot accounts don't carry over. If anyone thinks the edit I made was inappropriate, please do change it. For full disclosure, I was in an edit-dispute with Mr Boothroyd as Fys on en-Wikipedia in late 2007. I have no view on whether to keep or remove this article. 83.104.35.37 (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article seems to have the wrong headline. The current material would be best described as "Media misreports Wikipedia resignation", since it's mostly concerned with proving that there are errors in the press sources. The real news story is something more like, "Wikipedia arbitrator resigns after other accounts revealed". Such an article might be worth a paragraph or two. Will Beback (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There were major errors in the general press on this subject. If we as a project can show that we can do a better, more accurate article that also helps correct those serious flaws then that is a good thing. A decent article explaining in particular the deep errors concerning the David Cameron matter is not at all a bad idea. Moreover, claims that this isn't newsworthy are not valid given that major news publications covered aspects of this story (indeed, there was international coverage). I think it may make sense to change the title and focus to emphasize more how the press got the Cameron story wrong. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with the other voters and question it's news worthiness. That said, the article was well put together. --Jamesepain (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments
Comment: Nomination flawed? With respect, which particular policy violation does "navel-gazing" fall under other than a rhetorical "I don't like it"; and therefore what is the technical basis for responses of "del. as per nom."? (aka "I don't like it, either"). I would say that "as interesting as Steve Davis" falls into this category and "controversy is not news" is a patent falsehood. May lead to systemic bias. Just a thought from a Wikinews newbie.  Esowteric | Talk  09:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Articles must fall foul of the Criteria for deletion to be listed here". This doesn't mean after a flawed nomination, does it?  Esowteric | Talk  10:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * WN:NOT..Wikinews is not a dumping ground for failed Wikipedia articles. Just because it got deleted from Wikipedia doesn't mean it's likely to be better received here, especially if the original article was not neutrally written, had no sources, and had nothing to do with current affairs. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I don't doubt you're right: I'd go along with that. Cheers,  Esowteric | Talk  18:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Dera Ismail Khan
Ridiculously small geographic area. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * , per nom. Also maybe Category:North-West Frontier Province and Portal:North-West Frontier Province? Cirt (talk) 07:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The contributor has set up categories for all the Pakistan regions. Another one I saw recently was Category:Cleveland, England. I can understand US states as cats as many are bigger than a lot of European countries, but these micro-divisions will never really be properly applied. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. However I do seem to remember having a community discussion somewhere that categories should have at least 5 or more entries, perhaps we should make it 10. Cirt (talk) 07:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Brian, Cleveland is (well, technically speaked 'was') an English county. Other counties have categories. Plus, the area's local to me so I expect I'll be writing quite a bit on it. Computerjoe 's talk  09:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * as there is almost no coverage of this site-wide. However, if Wikinews coverage of this area increases later (wich is unlikely), then it can be readded. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  13:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Dera Ismail Khan is a notable city, and it deserves a category just as any city does. Plus, the subdivision categories do not deserve to be deleted, firstly because I will be working a lot on them, and secondly, because there is almost some new stuff happening in Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province region (the current political, economic situation over there as well as the war against terror is an example). You can see this is evident by the fact that this category has 5 articles already (4 of which I created myself). If this is deleted, it is like sprawling all my efforts into thin air. Ali Rana (talk) 07:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't have city categories, take a look. They're irregularly maintained and applied. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Your efforts are more likely to get zapped into oblivion. Mainly for putting publish on them when no review had been done, but more because they're all pretty much stale now. All articles MUST be reviewed and a peer review template filled out on the talk page by an independent contributor with the editor privilege. If not, then due to the wonders of Flagged Revisions your article will never appear on the main page. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If - if - people are actively ensuring a particular small area category is maintainad and there are plenty of articles then we can keep a hold of it e.g. London does alright for itself. In this case, there is only one article. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 11:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Pakistan? Calebrw (talk) 14:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a rather unlikely search term, so I don't think a redirect to the Pakistan category is really necessary. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  20:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Pre-war intelligence infobox
Speedy was requested, but declined by me. The template seems useless, but it is linked in quite a few articles, which made me hesitant to remove it. Thought i'd list it here to see what other users think about this. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  19:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * , could be replaced at linked articles with Iraq. Cirt (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * , having requested the speedy-support replacing. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;">Dotty•• |<font style="font-family:Script;">&#9742; 10:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * - it is not even working properly. Replace with either Iraq or Iraq war as appropriate. --SVTCobra 22:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

World space agencies face challenges and opportunities
I believe this article fails the newsworthiness aspect of Wikinews. Reporting on the general status of space programs isn't news. If there are news stories in here, they should be reported individually. Computerjoe 's talk 21:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Votes
Please vote using, ,.

Category:Association football
This category was wrongly created to replace Category:Football (soccer) instead of moving the category and then replacing it on the pages concenred. Per discussion at Water cooler/policy, this change should never had been made without consesnus and, what's more, the discussion quickly showed a consensus against the change. I now propose we delete this category and restor the original on te articles concerned. That's 344 pages, BTW, quite a big mess to clean up. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 15:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Please vote using, , , or followed by signature

Comments

 * - it'd be nice if some more Wikinewsies weighed in on this. It has been open for more than ten days now. --SVTCobra 01:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * - per my comments at the Water cooler, Category:Football (soccer) serves our purposes better. That Wikipedia uses "Association football," should be of no consequence to Wikinews. --SVTCobra 22:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We used to have "Football" and "American Football". Association Football? Never heard of it. --Brian McNeil / talk 06:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * per brianmc-what the hell is association football?! <i style="position:absolute;z-index:-1;bottom:0;width:2.8em;height:8px;background:#eee;"> </i>  Tris   08:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Roller skating babies becomes YouTube sensation
Hardly newsworthy. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "hardly" means that somewhere in there, there is a touch of newsworthyness. Regardless of that, I hate to say this, but it is already published.  The _only_ reason we should ever delete an article that has been published is if it is A) Blatantly false (we were mislead) or B) legal reasons.  It's published, it's not a lie, hell its even got main stream media coverage.  End of story. -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 20:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not news at all. It's a random advertisement that caught the attention of a few news agencies. There are thousands of YouTube videos with more hits. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I, personally, would never have reviewed and published. However, it's done. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I reviewed and published it & stand by that. Yes, it's not deadly serious etc. but it has got mainstream media coverage.  I know that doesn't mean we should automatically cover it, but it's interesting for many of the readers as evidenced by the viewing statistics(currently about 9x the second most viewed article!)   <i style="position:absolute;z-index:-1;bottom:0;width:2.8em;height:8px;background:#eee;"> </i>  Tris   23:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * - I see sources used that include Xinhua News Agency, The Guardian, and The Daily Telegraph. also makes a good point. Cirt (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Newsworthiness is not the same as Wikipedia-style notability. --Killing Vector (talk) 13:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This should not have been published. Consensus to publish is split, feedback on the opinions page is against it. --Killing Vector (talk) 13:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * - Definetely not notable. The susan Boyle video got over 50 million in a week. As a regular youtube user, I've seen lots of videos get over 5 million in a week. Yotcmdr (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I vote this way despite loathing that it is news. We do not have a Wikipedia:Notability policy. Objectively, this is no different than reporting what film did well at the box-office or what song hit the music charts. The sources are of high quality and I will not judge what one person considers news. I might someday contribute (or may already have) some item that others feel to be non-news. I prefer that they not have the power to delete it just because they don't find it interesting. --SVTCobra 00:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really all that newsworthy, but deleting published articles is way worse then letting it stay. --Cspurrier (talk) 07:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Published, so external sites may have linked to it now. It's bad to have external sites link to deleted pages. Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk) 12:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with various sentiments here; particularly that nothing that is published should be deleted (although it may be retracted without deletion) and that we should carry 'micronews' - if we allow people to write about, say, the election of a mayor in whatever town they live in then we can allow this. Hell, I can't exactly say othwerwise and I would stand by the decision to write that sort of stuff from time to time if I want. I reserve the right to make a scathing comments page remark about whatever nonevent you choose to cover, but I won't see it deleted. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments

 * I'd also like to point out the posts on the comments page. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Top comment on talk is mine, but I voted keep above. It was an admonition to the reviewer. I'm sure the comments will be taken in a similar light. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Pyrotechnics
Encyclopedic category. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just adding it to the articles, as it was added to the talk pages instead. Removing it is fine with me, but the user should be encouraged to do something different. Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk) 13:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * little or no use from a news media perspective. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Would be more inclined to keep if it were already more widely used prior to this, say at 10 or more articles. Cirt (talk) 11:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What does "Encyclopedic category" actually mean? If we have articles relating to pyrotechnics then Category:Pyrotechnics would seem a sensible name surely? Adambro (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We also have articles on suicide bombers, yet that is not a category. It is a matter of judgment, to be sure, but at some point the topics become too specific to have a news purpose. --SVTCobra 00:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * --SVTCobra 00:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Ancient editorials
Some old editorials from years back that were shunted into userspace. Of no use to us and no sign the user's involved want them there. These should really have stayed mainspace and been deleted. Nominated are: User:64.26.98.74/Like It Or Not Israel Must Deal With Hamas Now, User:201.121.204.58/Saving the Bay of La Paz & Gulf of California, User:147.126.46.147/The Russian Threat?, User:Artpoetryfiction/Vietnam Passes New Intellectual Property Law, User:Chopbrown/Iran and Nuclear Proliferation: Narrow Interests or Common Good?, User:Fredericknoronha/Understanding language politics in Goa, India, User:Free them/Revealing gender wealth gap in the United States, User:JorgeReyes/A Photo Journey through the Heart and Soul of Cuba, User:Kisaac/New Middle East - At Harmony, User:Kabir/Freedom Figting-The Baloochistan Way, User:Paulrevere2005/Afghanistan opium production keeps skyrocketing while the administration says and User:Universalblogger/One new idea that could kill google.

Votes

 * as nom Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure it is bad that these editorials are lingering around in user space. I'm still a bit in doubt whether to keep them or not. Maybe we should look on a case by case basis. For now, I'll vote for, but you may be able to convince me to change my vote. Van der Hoorn (talk) 10:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * those which are on IP address subpages. the rest. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly for the IP address subpages. As for the others I'll have say for now. --SVTCobra 22:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. the IP address subpages (I don't feel that it is appropriate for an IP to have a subpage, given that many of them are dynamic IP used by multiple people over time), and  the non-IP ones. No reason to delete those unless there is an individual reason to do so for each one of them. Gopher65talk 19:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Batch of low-use event cats
I am nominating the following categories: Category:2006 European Championships in Athletics, Category:2007 Taipei International Travel Fair, Category:2008 Creative Taiwan, Category:2008 Leisure Taiwan and Category:2008 Motorcycle Taiwan. All of these are populated by just a couple of articles - too few to justify a category - and as they cover past events there is no hope for any more. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * --James Pain (talk) 12:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * --Brian McNeil / talk 14:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Moved some of the articles in the categories one category 'up', so they are still adequately categorized. Van der Hoorn (talk) 09:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * considering the majority of these are now empty and I can accept that as they relate to past events there are unlikely to be further relevant articles. I would ask though that where a discussion about categories is ongoing, no changes are made to what articles are in that category otherwise it makes it difficult for others to assess the situation. Adambro (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Will leave them next time. Sorry. Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * --SVTCobra 00:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Ridgefield, New Jersey, Category:Secaucus, New Jersey, Category:Hoboken, New Jersey and Category:Brooklyn
Ultra-local categories, only one story in it. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * --Brian McNeil / talk 08:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * --SVTCobra 00:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Van der Hoorn (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Kerosene Band Dubai
This is a shameless piece of advertising, listing here rather than speedying as it's in user space. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom.--Brian McNeil / talk 21:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * - if there was any evidence that this was a real user that contributes, some of it might be ok as a "this is my hobby" section. This, however, is purely band promotion, though I haven't the foggiest idea what booking agent they hope to reach with a wikinews user page. --SVTCobra 22:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * could have been speedyed, not really user space appropriate, no contribs, its an ad. --Cspurrier (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Van der Hoorn (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Quetta Category:Rawalpindi
Detail category with no articles, not for a capital city, extremely unlikely to be well maintained. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments

 * Symbol comment vote.svg Comment&mdash; Have you noticed that every story has the same 5 categories on it? How exactly are those categories useful for searching about a specific topic if every blooming story has those cats? It's ridiculous. If we're going to use categories in this way (broad cats with no subcats), then we might as well not use the category system at all, because it is currently useless.


 * This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we never bother to create these sub-categories, then of course no one will ever use them. If the cats are created and we delete them before they can be used in the minimum number of stories required, then they will never achieve the "minimum requirements for existence", whatever those are. This is an unfortunate consequence of the (retarded) way that wikimedia category system currently works, and it's compounded by our actions here at wikinews.Gopher65talk 07:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That is insane. Are you really saying people won't write news on a subject because there isn't a category for it? Once there are a few stories a category pops up. It makes sense to me. Also, are you really saying that the broad cats are of no use? People don't want news on their home country or continent, or a neighbouring country, or one they visit every year, or one... etc.? I look forward to the day when we have enough stories about more or less every city anywhere to have a cat for each. I really do. Until then, though, we must grow to match what's needed. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 09:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Broad categories *are* mostly useless. There are a few useful ones like the country cats, but other than that, they're pointless. If you're looking for a story about space shuttles, are you really going to bother to search through 3000 Science and technology articles? Of course not. And that problem will only grow as the number of articles grows. The purpose of sub-cats of greater specificity is that they allow the reader to easily search for articles on specific topics, rather than on topics too broad to be meaningful. Gopher65talk 13:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My issues with not creating cats is that many articles don't necessarily have the name of the cat in them. How do you google search for articles to put into a regional cat after the fact (more on that in my comment below)? It can't be done, except by manually examining article that has any possibility of needing that cat. And no one will ever do that:P. So if we don't create the cats as they are needed, and let them sit with only one article in them until such a time as more are added, then we'll end up with a large(r) number of orphaned articles that don't have the appropriate cats on them. Gopher65talk 13:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as Science and Technology etc. goes it's reasonable to assume someone reading such an article might be intereted in other S&T articles. It's not for seeking specifics when it gets that broad - it's for browsing. Plus, they are useful for DPLs. Remember, the latest articles in the cat are displayed at the top for a high-popuation cat. As to regional cats, I'll reply to that below. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: Please do not subst the remove, keep, or comment templates.


 * Yes, there is a fairly narrow scope of regularly used categories - this is far from useless. It might not be particularly helpful on Wikipedia, but with dates also being categories and us using DPL, then this is very useful, and important to the good running of the site.


 * I personally have created a large number of categories, such as those for many politicians. A task such as that is not too difficult when using AWB to search for relevant articles, but progressively smaller geographic divisions are more problematic. Given the extent of the current archive I do not think categories should be created where there are less than three-five published articles. I certainly think that the associated Portal pages should not be created until there are significantly more articles.
 * Given that, my biggest concern is that many such categories will be very irregularly maintained. An article can belong in a region category but nobody outside the area can tell - you can't always search with Google for category candidates. This will change if we get wider participation. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * IIRC portals are largely manually maintained. Assuming that is true, I oppose the creation of any but the most broad portals until our userbase is huge. But categories require no maintenance. Once they're created they just sit on the cat list waiting for someone to use them. Even unused cats should be of no concern to us unless they are plainly stupid cats. For things like politicians you can add cats after the fact, since their names are always in articles mentioning them (searching is easy). But what about cities or regions? An article about NASA doing a launch from Cape Canaveral should have Category:Florida on it, but it is darned hard to add it after the fact, since the word "Florida" will most probably not appear in the article itself.


 * Once the cats are created, the eventual creation of portals (should we ever choose to create a portal on the subject in question) becomes easier, due to the easier searching of related articles. Gopher65talk 13:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The regional cat problem will have some examples like the Cape Canaveral one, which is an issue, but mostly that's a pretty sound argument against regional cats. Wikinews is international and so international contributors should be able to work out if a cat is relevant or not. See my suburb comment below as an stupidly extreme example in order to clearly (I hope) illustrate the point. If I write about, say, a city in Turkmenistan you'll understand that there won't be anyone who knows enough about the nation's regions to help out. The result would be unmaintainable cats. On Wikipedia it works because everything is always there and built up over time, but here most articles are already ancient history by the time they get archived, and most rarely see any more edits. We can't expect people to gradually keep refining things until it is exactly categorised into every region.


 * What might be a good idea, though, for some of the more popular countries, is to draw up lists of what cities/big towns are in what county/province/whatever. That way categories on some regions could be created and maintained. I would also like Wikinews to have the ability to search only for articles in (a) certain category/ies to allow the big ones to be more useful, as well as the ability to search only for articles not in (a) certain category/ies to allow for easier categorisation in this way. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I know this isn't quite what you meant, but we do have this: Category:Category. I would like to see an easy system for locating cats to put on an article. Especially regional/city cats, which I normally have difficulty finding. Gopher65talk 14:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there needs to be a proper consensus regarding the rulings on creating categories. As a lot of users above me mentioned, creating regional categories is useful because in the long-run, we're hopefully going to have more and more news articles about the designated location. This is a perspective that Wikinews admins should consider and take into account. Proper regional categories should be kept if they meet minimum requirements, which is what I am trying to do. Also have a look at this category for example: Category:Baghdad. Currently, it has only 2 articles though I am 99% there are more articles and that the few categorised articles are a result of failed supervision. Ali Rana (talk) 01:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, good catch! I'll go and populate it. Yes, that's exactly the problem I'm hoping to help resolve. Damn, this would be so easier with a search that excluded certain cats! Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 09:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom.--Brian McNeil / talk 07:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with nominator; this category is unlikely to be used. If, however, we have significant coverage of these topics in the future, then we can certainly recreate the cats then. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  00:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * agreed. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * &mdash; I disagree. This was the city where Rawalpindi is where Benazir Bhutto was assassinated, so it has at least some news notoriety. We already have several stories that are suitable for this cat (and they've now been added to it). (EDIT: I feel the same way about the Quetta Category, but not as strongly.) Gopher65talk 02:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Agree - Rawalpindi is notable enough. Category also has three articles, and hence satisfies to meet the minimum requirement. Ali Rana (talk) 08:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Quetta as certainly not containing enough articles. Ali, it is not about notability but about a combination of if there are enough articles, if it is likely to be useful to people (i.e. would anyone ever want to view news on this topic - in most cases, that one's yes) and are contributors likely to realise that an article is relevant to the category (so even if there are fifty articles relating to some suburb, the exact suburb may not appear in news reports, so that would not be okay, but a town or a city would). As to the number of articles required... there is no real agreement. I'd say five sounds good. Some - you, for an obvious example - would say three, and I'm sure other people with different numbers can be produced. Accordingly, I abstain from comment on Rawalpindi without prejudice if a standard is agreed upon. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 15:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Quetta Rawalpindi. --SVTCobra 03:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Fuckups
Redirects to category:Disasters and accidents. I don't think this is a legitimate redirect; it is a very unlikely search term, not to mention unprofessional. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  17:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nominator. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  17:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I am not beyond seeing the humourous intent, we should keep it out of the namespaces aimed at the public - pretty much all except user. This is the sort of thing that can harm the reputation of Wikinews. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think speedy would be appropriate here. --Jcart1534 (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Dynamic South Asia
This is not a recognised region as shown in our sidebar. The template is not used anywhere, nor is there anywhere that it can be used. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom.--Brian McNeil / talk 08:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Pretty much useless, methinks. This is a Wikipedia-style geographical template and we don't really use them here. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  10:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also Template:South Asia, as that template uses this one. Van der Hoorn (talk) 12:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * per nom. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 13:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We do not need to have such templates; the regions we have suffice perfectly well. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Girl_in_swimming_pool_pulled_out_unconsious
Scrapping the bottom of the barrel at best. I don't believe this is newsworthy. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments
This should have been left for WN:PROD, where it seemed to have been headed for lack of sources. We cannot hold DRs for every submission that is single-sourced, non-sourced, and/or fails to meet basic style requirements. PROD is the way they go, which may or may not include abandoned after a couple of days. --SVTCobra 23:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * Well I agree its not the most news worthy thing in the world, and that it needs more work before it is up to the standard needed to be published, I am of the opinion that it is news worthy enough. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but it seems extremely localized, and I don't see anything particularly noteworthy about it. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, it's a direct copyvio of the source listed. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about that sort of -- it's been paraphrased badly but there's still been an effort to paraphrase. I'm more inclined to say the author needs instruction; knee-jerk deletion would be counter to that. --Killing Vector (talk) 02:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * sorry for all the confusion. --NewsPelican66 (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * -- doesn't satisfy requirements for deletion above and beyond the usual unsourced articles. Give the author a chance to improve it. --Killing Vector (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a very local story, but I think it meets the content guide and newsworthiness guidelines. However, it needs quite a bit of work and cleanup before it can be published. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  18:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * More genuine news than a lot of stuff that comes in. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not so long ago we actively encouraged people to write local news, and so long as we don't drown in it that's cool by me. I like the idea that two cars crunching each other's headlights down the road goes alongside the latest world trade agreement. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's local news! --<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif"> Sken   my talk 20:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of people go unconscious every day. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's too localized to wind up on here, so you can leave it to your local news sources. ConCompS (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Local news is within the scope of Wikinews. --SVTCobra 03:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Azad Kashmir and Portal:Azad Kashmir
Both completely unused. Searching finds only one article that mentions the area at all. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * Agree with nom; both portal and category are practically unused. If, however, our coverage of the area increases later, we can easily recreate the cat. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  12:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * the portal, the category. Gopher65talk 13:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Portal, category. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * . Personally, I'd prefer a category for the Kashmir region as a whole, instead of separate ones for the parts that are India and Pakistan. I see this as similar to the Category:Middle East which straddles Africa and Asia. --SVTCobra 03:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As per Tempodivalse, can recreate later if necessary with new naming system (per BRS). --Jcart1534 (talk) 03:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * portal; category. Van der Hoorn (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments
That search conducted by BRS just confirms my point below. Every story mentioning Kashmir tensions between India and Pakistan could legitimately have this cat. So could every cross-border terrorist story, every story about Pakistani terrorist training camps, and every story about Indian military/police killing Muslims and forcing them to retreat into Pakistan. I'm sure that there are other possibilities that I can't think of. It's not that there aren't articles to fill this category, it's a question of 1) How do we find the old articles, and 2) How do we make sure that cats get used in appropriate articles in the future? (Maybe some sort of better cat sorting system... or something.) Gopher65talk 13:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * See my reponse below... Midway through writing it I thought of an added an idea for moving the category system forward. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 14:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I withdraw my nom of the category per the new subcat system we are working towards. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)  (Contribs) 12:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Pakistan-province-category, Portal:Balochistan (Pakistan), Portal:North-West Frontier Province, Portal:Sindh, Category:Wikinews Pakistan, and Portal:ISI
Per discussion here. Remove the template, design a more generic regional template that does not rely on portals that will list a tiny number of articles. Remove portals that cannot usefully subdivide news into topical categories and populate four or five of those with several articles. Remove Wikinews Pakistan category as an internal category, or remove from Pakistan category where it misleadingly indicates it may contain news items. Remove portal ISI, complimentary category was deleted in renaming to match Wikipedia and has insufficient articles to justify a portal. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments

 * Please refer to the longer and open-ended discussion on the Water Cooler. While any wiki is technically a work in progress these pages reflect poorly on Wikinews by really highlighting this issue. I believe they should be deleted and a more comprehensive approach to the problems reached. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom.--Brian McNeil / talk 12:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * all listed pages. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  14:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Category:Wikinews Pakistan, others as per nom. Ali Rana (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why keep Wikinews Pakistan? What purpose does it serve? --Brian McNeil / talk 15:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * pages listed in nom. Cirt (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * all. I am guessing that Ali Rana wants to keep Category:Wikinews Pakistan because it is like Category:Wikinews Canada. However, I don't know of any Wikinews Bureau (including WikiBureau Canada) that is active. I believe they could all be deleted or tagged historic. We should not use these remnants as a reason to create Categories, Portals, and Bureaus for regions that simply do not have the user-base to support them. Rather, we should eliminate the excess. --SVTCobra 03:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Jcart1534 (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Portal:User en, Portal:User en-1, Portal:User en-2, Portal:User en-3, Portal:User en-4, Portal:User en-5, Portal:User en-N
I don't think these portals are needed. They serve the same function as user categories, with no added benefits, so they are rather redundant. Also, as they use dpls, the limit on the maximum number of pages a DPL can list could become problematic as our user base grows. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  14:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  14:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * portals should avoid jargon names and actually be useful. These don't seem to be either. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --SVTCobra 09:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Jcart1534 (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * , although I don't think DPL maximum is going to be a problem. Van der Hoorn (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted article notice
Apparently, this was supposed to be used as a place to redirect articles that were copyvios. Since the common practise is now to delete copyvios wholesale, this has no purpose any longer. (It doesn't seem to have ever been used, as only one article redirects there). <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  01:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  01:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * and the redirects that point to it should be deleted as well. (eg. Channel Seven Looses Controll Of Audio). --SVTCobra 02:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Jcart1534 (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Story preparation/YoungTubersUnited
This seems to have been an intended interview about an event which is now years old. It looks to be pretty much useless at this point. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  01:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  01:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Cyclone
Entirely redundant to both Category:Weather and Category:Hurricane. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments

 * Can an admin close this? It's been well over 1 month. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * Although a cyclone and hurricane are basically the same thing, I feel we should have separate categories for them, to be used depending on which way it is referred to in an article. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  02:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Changed vote to, convinced by the below comments by user:Juliancolton. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse  <font face="Georgia">[talk]  00:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Here at Wikinews, the term "hurricane" traditionally refers to all tropical cyclones, which is why Cat:Cyclone is redundant. If this category is kept, we'd need to create Category:Tropical depression, Category:Tropical storm, Category:Typhoon, Category:Deep depression, Category:Cyclonic storm, Category:Severe cyclonic storm, Category:Very severe cyclonic storm, Category:Severe tropical storm, Category:Very intense tropical storm, Category:Intense tropical storm, Category:Severe tropical storm, Category:Moderate tropical storm, etc. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think an explanatory note on the hurricane category that all these various storms are included should be enough. Julian, to defer to your knowledge of this issue, is 'hurricane' a sufficient description for all these storms, or is there a better collective term? Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Technically, the term "hurricane" refers only to tropical cyclones with winds of over 74 mph in the Eastern Pacific and Northern Atlantic oceans. However, more commonly, it is used to encompass all tropical cyclones in all ocean basins. Using excessive technicalities and jargon when discussing meteorology leads to unnecessary confusion, so while "tropical cyclone" would certainly be a more accurate term, it would also be unnecessarily complex for the general public. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly, a "hurricane" is a tropical cyclone in the Eastern Pacific or Atlantic oceans, while it's called a "typhoon" or "cyclone" when it occurs in Asia (see hurricane, typhoon and cyclone). That's why I feel we should have separate categories for them - because both terms do not necessarily refer to the exact same thing. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  23:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's correct, but hurricanes, typhoons, and cyclones are the exact same thing, just with different names. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 23:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * After thinking it over a bit, I tend to agree with you. I guess that they don't differ enough to warrant separate categories, and the most commonly used term world-wide for the storm is "hurricane". I think that there should be a note on the category page though, noting that it covers all of those various storms. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  00:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is that "tropical cyclone" is too complex for the general public, but hurricane is not? That would probably be true if you call a tropical cyclone a hurricane, but not true if you would call it a cyclone/typhoon. Maybe _you_ find hurricane not so complex, but if you live in Asia then you may never use the term. I suggest renaming the whole thing to "tropical cyclone" or make both "hurricane" and "cyclone" a subcategory of "tropical cyclone". If this solution is not sufficient, then I'll vote for.


 * Would Tropical Storm work perhaps. Well we're on the subject, I'm of the opinion that our category:Hurricane Season, some year categories should be unified into just category:Hurricanes. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue there is that the term "tropical storm" isn't as well-known as "hurricane", and it's best to keep things simple and accessible. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 23:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * &mdash; With one caveat and one additional issue. Caveat: I agree with Tempo that the Hurricane cat should make sure to list the terms Tropical Storm, Typhoon, and Cyclone (which can refer to a tornado too in some places, actually:P) as synonyms of the word. Additional issue: I agree with Bawolff that there is no need for by-year listing of hurricanes. It just obstificates the category process, as I recently found out while doing a wackload of editprotected requests related to incorrect categorizing of hurricane seasons in many, many articles. A single hurricane category would be better. Gopher65talk 16:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * cyclone seems to be the overall term which describes hurricanes, typhoons and other storm patterns. I wonder if we — instead of deleting Category:Cyclone — should be renaming Category:Hurricane. I agree with other comments that we should only have one category for these weather patterns. --SVTCobra 00:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem here - and the cause of my initial hesitation to support deletion - is that there is no standard, internationalised way to refer to the storm. For those living in the Americas or England, the term used is "hurricane", elsewhere in the world it is referred to as a "typhoon" or "cyclone". Which one to use? I'm under the impression that "hurricane" is used more frequently, but perhaps we should instead consider using Category:Tropical cyclone since that's the scientific term for all three storms (although the only problem might be that it's too confusing for the average reader, as Julian says above). <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  00:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I get the point, but the storms that apply to the UK and North America are Atlantic Hurricanes. But as this is English Wikinews, we must consider that those are not the only English-speaking areas. What do they call these storms in Australia, for example? If they call them "hurricanes" and not "cyclones" or "typhoons", then we are closer to justifying the less-scientific term. Do we have anyone left from our once-vibrant community down-under to weigh in on this? --SVTCobra 00:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In Australia, the Indian Ocean, the South Pacific, and the South Atlantic, tropical cyclones are referred to simply as "cyclones"; in the Western North Pacific, they are referred to as "typhoons"; and in the Eastern North Pacific and Northern Atlantic, "hurricanes". So "tropical cyclones" would be the only name that applies to systems in all basins, but again, "hurricane" is the most common name. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:Wikimania 2009
Now that the 2009 WM is long over, it is unlikely any articles will be written on this very specific topic, and the template is currently not used anywhere. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  00:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  00:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Brian McNeil / talk 01:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wikimania 2009
The 2009 Wikimania is long over now. This category only has two articles in it, and as it's rather unlikely we will ever be able to populate it with any more at this point, I suggest it be deleted. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  23:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  23:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * , a bit too specific. Cirt (talk) 03:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * --Brian McNeil / talk 09:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Story preparation/Jimmy Wales dies
Way too soon... – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 06:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * This is actually a perfect example of something that probably should be on Wikinewsie Wiki instead. Why not move it there and keep it around.  While all Journalism groups write obits long in advanced, most of them keep it underwraps because they don't want to look...morbid.  We probably should consider doing the same. -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 06:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a prepared story, there is currently no consensus to move obits off the public wiki and all prepared obits should be handled the same way. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Prepared obits should be made. I would oppose a move to Wikinewsie on the same basis as made in previous discussions, which is that it would lock the vast majority of contributors out. That said, there is a case for moving it there so feel free to bring that up again. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But why Jimbo? There's no indication whatsoever that he is going to face death within the next 10, 20, 30 years. Just seems a bit off to me.
 * Also, we have to worry about potential misinformation. I found a link to this page via IRC, and another user asked "Did he really die?". – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 12:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Jimbo because someone wanted to write about Jimbo. Also, if people can't read then that's their problem. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There's nothing wrong with having prepared obits on notable people - the prepared clearly indicates the story is wrong, and the page will get virtually zero outside traffic anyway because of the _noindex_. Also, I would oppose moving the obituaries to Wikinewsie as that would prevent most editors from contributing to them. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  13:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * and expand. GreenReaper (talk) 02:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * , this is precisely what the purpose of the prepared obits on wiki system is for. I would also oppose moving this sort of thing to another site. Cirt (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we should look at the prepared obits because most of them, like this, are so small that they serve no purpose at all. A prepared obituary should surely contain many details of their life so that we can get it out as quickly as possible in the event of their death.  I don't think just Wales' should be deleted, but many of the others as well, or be expanded.  <i style="position:absolute;z-index:-1;bottom:0;width:2.8em;height:8px;background:#eee;"> </i>  Tris   20:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: This rationale is actually a good argument for keeping and expanding planned obit pages. Cirt (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yep agreed; but my remove vote is if they're not going to be expanded-which they haven't been so far! <i style="position:absolute;z-index:-1;bottom:0;width:2.8em;height:8px;background:#eee;"> </i>  Tris   10:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Response: Actually, that is incorrect - please note that the recent obituary article Senator Ted Kennedy dies at age 77, actually started out as a prepared obit, and was successfully expanded upon into a live article. Cirt (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Response: Yes I see that, but it wasn't really very long-would only take a few minutes to make that much anyway. I bet my bottom dollar that big news organisations' obituaries are pretty much ready & just need a few details added in-they would be much more comprehensive than they are currently.  I think all of them should be seriously expanded-if everyone could take one, & using info from the Wikipedia article & other sources, then make them decent so that at least they are a decent obituary for the person just died.  <i style="position:absolute;z-index:-1;bottom:0;width:2.8em;height:8px;background:#eee;"> </i>  Tris   16:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * per all (relevant) arguments above. Van der Hoorn (talk • contribs) 10:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * as Story preparation/Obituaries says, the prepared obituaries are for:
 * ''An obituary should be written if a prominent or notable person has any of the following dilemma:
 * '' The person is old enough to be able to die of age at any time.
 * ''The person has an illness/sickness/handicap that might take the persons live at any time.
 * ''The person is highly probable to be murdered/killed by a third party or external event at any time.
 * None of these seem to apply to Jimbo at present.
 * Secondly, the prepared story is near useless in that it won't save anyone any time in writing an obit. --SVTCobra 00:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well-said. This is basically what I was getting at. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Water and Portal:Water
This is an rather encyclopedic category that I don't think is suitable for a news site - and it has gotten almost no use in the past four years. As such, I suggest it be removed. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  21:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nominator. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  21:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems fair enough <i style="position:absolute;z-index:-1;bottom:0;width:2.8em;height:8px;background:#eee;"> </i>  Tris   21:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * the category, but no opinion on the portal. The category seems valid, and can be populated with a few hundred articles. 69.121.245.182 (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedic categories need to die. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * category, portal. Ali Rana (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * but if the category is kept it needs to be cleaned up; it is a mess. --SVTCobra 01:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Potal for sure, and less strongly the category. I doubt folk will find it useful to find other stories about water when they arrive at one. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 11:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Citation
An encyclopedic template that has been beaten with the ugly stick. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments

 * Forgive me, but wasn't there a plan to use this to produce 'hidden' citations, either to help reviewers with long articles or to help show them which details they are trying to pick out from long sources. They were to be hidden from regular users, but those who had it enabled could toggle them on and off. Isn't that what this is for? Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 06:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * eh, no. Such an idea may have been proposed but if you look at the history you will see the user who created this has nothing to do with that. This was solely to cite some stuff to say "homeopathy is widely regarded by the medical community as quackery". Use of this template in the article in question looked bloody awful, and most of the sources they wanted to cite are locked away behind paywalls. Thus, they got removed and the remaining link on that article was reformatted to look less like someone had vomited into the page source. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * , looks like a WP-style book source template - not likely to be ever used here. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  03:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * not linked to any system we use per Brian. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, . – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If/when deleted, the use at Parents prosecuted after homeopathic treatment leads to daughter's death should be replace with another type. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Various Pakistan-related images in the File: namespace
The following: File:Map of Pakistan highlighting Sindh.png, File:Lahore Emblem.jpg, File:AK map3.jpg, and File:Flag of Sindh.PNG all lack any rationale, they include images copied from Wikipedia and mangled by saving the displayed version instead of retrieving the original SVG format; maps which, if not ripped off from somewhere else, should be on Commons. The uploader was warned about the lack or rationale, poor uploading, and general issues about these several days ago. Despite this notice on his talk page, and clear recent activity, absolutely no response has been forthcoming, nor any effort to bring these into compliance. Thus, I nominate them for a trip round the back of the chemical sheds where they shall meet a timely end. The alternative was just being a bastard and speedy deleting them as I could under project policy. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * , says the nominator. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Strictly Come Dancing
Only one article at the moment, "popcorn" entertainment that is unlikely to generate significant coverage, not critical to keep track of this in such a way. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments

 * I have put up some protected requests to get some archived articles into this category. Rayboy8 (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with nominator. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  13:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

US
Brian wanted to kill this redirect on the basis that it shouldn't really be used in articles; we should link to United States instead would I assume be the implied meaning. Tempo restored because, wether we should or not (I'm prolly guilty and I know I shouldn't) a large number of pages link. I'm not altogether sure this should go; keep out of articles, yes, but if someone sticks 'US' in the search then the redirect becomes useful. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 00:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * While we probably shouldn't link to US (United States is better), this is a helpful redirect if someone decides to search for it (redirects to the US portal). Also, if we delete this, we'll have to correct the links in dozens of articles where it's used - which will take some significant effort. I think it's easier to let it be and simply discourage use of the redirect in the future. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  00:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * if nothing else for the people who punch "US" into the search box. Sorry to say, but us Americans are lazy and dont like typing out "United States of America" all the time. -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 20:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As a proud, lazy American, I wholly support this. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 02:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * --Similar reasons to above. <i style="position:absolute;z-index:-1;bottom:0;width:2.8em;height:8px;background:#eee;"> </i>  Tris   13:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Useful as a navigational redirect. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 13:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with above comments. the wub "?!"  11:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Terrorism
This has previously been deleted. Wikinews does not have an opinion on whether or not the actions of an individual or group are terrorism. This is, as the previous discussion states – and associated deletion of category Islamic terrorism – not how these people will self-identify or be universally seen. Calling someone a terrorist is an inherently POV act. Wikinews should not do so. --Brian McNeil / talk 02:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments

 * Note: By limiting inclusion to articles that already have the word "terrorism" itself in the very title of the headline of the articles, this is not subjective. Rather, it is merely a category for articles having to do with the topic of "terrorism". Otherwise, we might as well forbid anyone using the word "terrorism" in any article title on Wikinews, ever. Cirt (talk) 04:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "terrorism" should only be used in titles such as Zimbabwe accuses British government of "terrorism" through interference. Citing someone else using the word, or even using it as quoted shorthand (i.e. 'terrorism') is not enough to justify inclusion in the category. --Brian McNeil / talk 04:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, please have a look at the articles currently in Category:Terrorism. The word is used on plenty of other articles, with seemingly no prior objection. Cirt (talk) 04:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Terror alert in Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, and Chennai is not terrorism. It is an Indian Government issued alert; it is their POV to call it a "terror alert". The article should not have taken that as a statement of fact. Indian government issues "terror alert" for Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, and Chennai would have been the neutral title. Wikinews does not have a position on whether or not an act is terrorism, or if an article is about a threat of terrorism. I repeat, this is an expression of POV no different than having Category:Freedom fighters. Terrorism is an "authoritarian" labelling of opponents; we don't accept it when Burma applies it to pro-democracy campaigners; nor should we accept it when this is the opinion of the Indian or United States government. --Brian McNeil / talk 04:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Placing an article in the category "terrorism" is not calling or labeling anything "terrorism". It is merely saying it is an article related to the general topic area. Cirt (talk) 04:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, North Carolina terrorist ring broken up, seven arrested; the title violates WN:NPOV by using "terrorist", it fails to say who says they are terrorists. Read the details, you might be closer to justifying the category &mdash; there is an offence of terrorism within the United States, legally defined &mdash; but what is the legal definition in Burma? In Somalia? How many articles are categorised as terrorism when labelled as such by Al Quaeda? You just can't have this category; read the past deletion discussion, categorising what western democracies call terrorism as terrorism; you have to categorise what Al Quaeda calls terrorism as terrorism. --Brian McNeil / talk 04:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that all articles with "terrorism" in the headline should be moved so that the word "terrorism" is always in quotes? Cirt (talk) 05:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Terrorism should never have been used in any title unless attributed to a source in such a way as it could have been quoted. I will not comment on the names of titles in the category at the moment; the discussion and frequent arguments over word choice at the time of the previous deletion would illustrate why it was deleted, and why all Wikinewsies should take extra care if the term crops up anywhere in or around an article. --Brian McNeil / talk 05:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a bit of an extreme position. Thousands of mainstream media articles use the word in headlines without quotes. Cirt (talk) 05:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * To further make my point, do you see the word "terrorism" in any of the articles here? I can't be sure I've always been as vigilant, but the democratically elected government of Thailand would put every single one of those stories in the category terrorism. A very significant number of people living in the troubled provinces and neighbouring Malaysia would strongly dispute that. --Brian McNeil / talk 05:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, so for you this is a POINT issue? Cirt (talk) 05:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you create Category:War on Terrorism. It is more narrowly defined and therefore less subjective. Benny the mascot (talk) 05:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And when Iran declares their own "War on Terrorism", then what? --Brian McNeil / talk 05:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * e/c - I fear would take issue with that, as well. Cirt (talk) 05:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We can create separate categories for every ongoing war or conflict. Benny the mascot (talk) 05:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Notes on prior actions of voters:
 * saw no problems with reviewing and publishing the article, Former terrorist arrested for 1970s murder of top German prosecutor. Cirt (talk) 05:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * reviewed and passed an article with the title: Terror alert in Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, and Chennai. This would be a perfect article to have in Category:Terrorism, it is obviously highly related to the topic. Cirt (talk) 04:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I passed the article because I believed that it was not in violation of any policy or consensus. That fact that I passed the article should not affect my vote here. Benny the mascot (talk) 05:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is relevant to the topic, and is within easily define inclusion criteria of having the very word of the category in the headline. You evidently had no objection to the word in the headline at the time of the review, when you passed it. Cirt (talk) 05:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Indian government called it a "terror alert", not Wikinews. There is no editorial bias in that article. Benny the mascot (talk) 05:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There are no quotation marks around the word, in the headline of the article that you reviewed and published. Cirt (talk) 05:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Style Guide doesn't call for quotation marks. In addition, quotation marks might reduce the gravity of the situation described. Benny the mascot (talk) 05:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. Does not really get around the fact that it is directly relevant to the topic. Cirt (talk) 05:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * had no WN:NPOV objections to terrorism as part of the headline in these articles - he archived and full protected them in these versions, and did not nominate any of them for deletion,, , , , , . Cirt (talk) 05:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not a WN:POINT attempt at disruption. I strongly object to it being characterised as such. If you want an opinion, as my final word on this with a flat refusal to be further badgered by the creator and sole supporter of this category at the moment, it is a lesson that needs given to a significant number of Wikinews contributors; it is one of the reasons I repeatedly remind people that "VOA is a propaganda division of the United States government". People will not self-identify as such ever, such as Muslims or any religious group might. This is a derogatory label anyone can apply if they've enough money and clout. Stop badgering people over a discussion that should be civil instead of inquisitional. --Brian McNeil / talk 05:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * and = these particular comments by  unfortunately do seem to have one particular WN:POINT in mind. Especially his drawing attention to Category:South Thailand insurgency. Cirt (talk) 05:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * - had no objections to the category, and in fact stated his intention to populate it . Cirt (talk) 05:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I will, once again, ask you to stop badgering myself and the other contributors who have currently cast votes for the deletion of this category. Further attempts to accuse me of making this nomination for reasons of WN:POINT and I will take this to dispute resolution seeking an uninvolved administrator sanction you to justify the inclusion of specific example articles instead of accusing those holding an alternate opinion of applying it inconsistently. Such behaviour, in my opinion, counts as disruption. This category was previously deleted on neutrality grounds; you do not appear to have reviewed that discussion at all. A similar inquisitorial investigation into the voters there would not be constructive. --Brian McNeil / talk 06:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have already explained inclusion for specific example articles. However, I will soon be proposing an alternate idea that hopefully all will find acceptable. :) Cirt (talk) 06:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be better than having to police this nightmare. --Brian McNeil / talk 06:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No one should feel forced that they "have" to "police" anything. Perhaps a break might be in order. :P Cirt (talk) 06:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, thank you, I don't need a break. I would expect the end result of this DR to be the category deleted as I requested; and I would expect all the current contributors to perform the "policing" – should some consensus and rules be thrashed out to allow this category to remain. The notice of its recreation did not link to the previous vote for this category to be deleted; Blood Red Sandman did not appear to comment beyond accepting its creation from a trusted user. Perhaps you should have raised this as an undeletion request instead. --Brian McNeil / talk 06:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You neglect to mention the notice did acknowledge the prior discussion. The prior discussion did not encompass a rationale of articles clearly with "terrorism" in the title. Cirt (talk) 06:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Between us we've written enough to put anyone off scrolling down far enough to actually vote. I missed population of the category, just caught it somewhere odd in recent changes and recalled the prior deletion. You'd mentioned it, but not dug the link out the archive and presented it. I doubt BRS did either, and I'm sure he'll review it and comment later. --Brian McNeil / talk 06:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom and protect against recreation. I made my comments on the prior discussions; Wikinews should be vigilant to avoid taking an editorial position in how it categorises any act, event, or such. --Brian McNeil / talk 02:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Very subjective. Benny the mascot (talk) 02:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Too subjective to be applied neutrally, I agree. Neutralizer's and Borofkin's comments in the previous DR pretty much sum up my opinion on this. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  03:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * - To be used for articles that have the word "terrorism" in the title, and deal with the subject matter. Not subjective if only used for articles that have the word itself in the very headline of the article. Cirt (talk) 04:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:War on Terror
This is a blanket category, inconsistently applied, and poorly defined. The "catchphrase" was the product of the US Bush administration, no longer in office, and has been semi-adopted by various regimes who are at various levels of non-free per press freedom indices.

This category should be strictly restricted to actions or pronouncements of the George W. Bush administration that can be clearly linked to their thematic ideological campaign known as the "War on Terror", renamed to clearly identify it with that US administration, or – as is preferable to me – completely deleted. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments & discussion

 * - I cleaned up the category, removing extraneous pages that did not mention "war on terror". Cirt (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This looks a lot more realistic now in terms of what the category should contain. However, I believe it should be renamed to Category:George W. Bush administration "War on Terror" which – technically – means it is a closed/historical category unless there is notable and clear reference to that particular Bush meme. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think an acceptable rename would be to "US War on Terror". Cirt (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but is it over or still ongoing? It's clearly linked to the Bush administration, once cleaned up nothing since they left office appears on it. As you might've gathered I don't subscribe to the perpetual War on topic-du-jour shtick; even Category:United States War on Terror will attract incorrectly filed entries and potential disputes over what is appropriate. Any ideas where the currently NPOV War on Terror might be going? I'd expect that to eventually move to a more encyclopedic name and we'd want to match it. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * War on Terror actually redirects to War on Terrorism, so "US War on Terrorism" is the best option, for now. Cirt (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd accept that. Of course, you can't rename categories. You have to delete them and repopulate them. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, for "US War on Terrorism". Cirt (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * - United States House votes against setting date for withdrawal from Iraq = example describes actions by the US Congress, not Bush. Cirt (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The reported-on bill is "Declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary". So, Category:US Global War on Terror. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd rather we go with "US War on Terrorism", to keep it more in-sync with War on Terrorism. Cirt (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If I could influence the Wikipedia naming scheme I'd have US "Global War on Terror" and restrict our coverage to official US commentary using the term. Let's leave mass changes until we get a few more opinions. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia naming conventions use the most common use of the term for article titles. In this case that appears to be War on Terrorism, followed by War on Terror. Cirt (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So, care to speculate what it will be in 100 years time? --Brian McNeil / talk 19:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure how that is relevant to now. Cirt (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Because 1) It would be good to have the category scope well-defined and 2) A name more closely associated with historical context should more descriptively define the category.
 * Do you really expect the "War on Terror" to be in-progress 100 years from now? --Brian McNeil / talk 23:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We'd have to determine that 100 years from now, but not now. Cirt (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom. Do not create any "difficult" categories like this without prior discussion of clear, unambiguous selection criteria; they should be avoided if people are not going to competently police them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brian McNeil (talk • contribs)
 * - Perfectly acceptable category for examples such as: 1) Amnesty Report 2006: disadvantaged pay price of war on terror 2) Department of Defense report lambasts communication failure in US War on Terror 3) US President George Bush discusses 'war on terror' 4) War on Terrorism could continue longer than the Cold War: Australia's Treasurer 5) War on terrorism memorial planned near Oklahoma Capitol. Note: This category was created in February 2008. Cirt (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * --Brian McNeil / talk 18:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This one, I think, is acceptable because it's not nearly as subjective as the terrorism category. Probably should be renamed to mention the US in the title, though. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  21:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm with Tempodivalse on this. If we can rename to something that doesn't reek Bush-era jingoism I'm all for it, because there are actions being taken against "terrorism". --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A "War on Terror" or a "War on Terrorism" is a neverending war. Has the new administration, in press releases or legislation, used these themes or the bush administration one "Global War on Terror"? --Brian McNeil / talk 22:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * --US war on terrorism or something similar. <i style="position:absolute;z-index:-1;bottom:0;width:2.8em;height:8px;background:#eee;"> </i>  Tris   08:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments:Shooting in Finnish mall leaves four dead
The deletion summary ('Commentary http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/File:Brianmc-passport-photo.jpg Just saying but doesnt he...' (and the only contributor was '72.73.95.21') appears to indicate that the offensive comment was directed at Brian McNeil, the deleting administrator. Offensive comments, however, do not trigger automatic deletion under Criteria for speedy deletion. Benny the mascot (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments

 * I see that someone else posted a comment. Does that mean that the offensive comment has essentially disappeared? Benny the mascot (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's still present in the deleted pages log and can be restored (but only viewable by sysops). It wasn't overwritten, if that's what you mean. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  22:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just in case anyone's curious, the full content of the said deleted post was:

REPOSTING OF TROLLING COMMENT REMOVED

-<font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  22:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That user, however, was a troll. Troll comments can be removed. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Under what policy? Benny the mascot (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, i don't know. WN:SD doesn't really apply to this page. Perhaps WN:IAR? <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  23:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's more a case of no policy prohibits it. The blocking policy allows us to block users like that, its logical to also delete their troublemaking and clear the way for legitimate users. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 23:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Congratulations. You've just succeeded in feeding the troll by wasting time. Don't jump all over shit like this unless you review the contributor's history and subsequent updates to pages they touch. This 'tard was libelling me by implying I was associated with the Finnish gunman. All the evidence to support that and earlier disruptive edits, is viewable by anyone. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You could have just blanked the page instead of deleting it. WN:SD doesn't give you the power to delete commnts like that. Also, what you did provides a dangerous precedent for future censorship. Benny the mascot (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't prevent him either, and that's very deliberate. Admins can use their commonsense. I've restored comments from neo-Nazis but I'd have deleted that. The laid-back approach works because we ahve a close community. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 23:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WN:SG: "For anything not a valid candidate for speedy deletion, use Wikinews:Deletion requests, or consider other approaches (moving the content to user's own area, editing content)." If you haven't noticed yet, I believe that admins and bureaucrats are limited to the powers expressly given to them. (That's just my opinion, though, and is more of an ideological issue than a policy issue) The vote here applies not only to this specific incident, but also to all other comments in the Comments namespace. Benny the mascot (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think WN:IAR applies here, to some extent. We really don't have much of a policy on speedy-deleting comments pages, but I think common sense should prevail in areas where we don't have hard policies or guidelines. For instance, supposing someone creates a comments page consisting of nothing but an expletive-filled, personal attack rant against another user. We wouldn't list that at WN:DR because there's no speedy deletion criteria for it, would we? It's sort of the same thing here, the IP seems to have been trolling and wasn't providing an opinion about the article itself (which is what the comments pages are meant for). Cheers, <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  00:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Blanking the page would accomplish the exact same thing. The public should at least have the ability to verify that admins aren't censoring potentially legitimate comments. Benny the mascot (talk) 04:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I swear, if 2010 is full of WikiLawyering shit like this I'll go rouge. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * May I join in? Could be fun. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 15:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In response to bawolff's comment, would inappropriate comments only be blanked if other users have already posted comments on the same page? Benny the mascot (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably so, as that's more convenient than purging the edit history for a single diff. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  15:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's how we've always done it. If requested by someone targeted, we might delete the revision. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 15:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So if troll A can edit a blank page and get his comment deleted, but troll B can edit a page already filled with other comments and only get his comment blanked, then the administrative actions would be unfairly harsher for troll A, wouldn't it? Benny the mascot (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, I really don't see what all this is getting at. What difference does it make, as long as the trollish comment is removed from immediate view and the troll reprimanded. Who cares if troll A is treated a bit differently than troll B? They have absolutely no place here anyway. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  16:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is sheer stupidity and WikiLawyering. I've removed the repost of the comment here. Will all of you take a look at how many revisions of this page there are? Now, consider the work an administrator would have to do to deal with the revisions containing the repost of the troll comment. The entire page history has to be deleted and selectively restored, one checkbox at a time. Thanks for that. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Further to the point, I've had a steward oversight out all revisions containing the offending comment. Admins can review that - it isn't a "consign to oblivion" oversight. However, this page has over 5,000 revisions. It cannot be deleted without locking up the entire database back-end for Wikinews. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with this oversight action. Cirt (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * Comments pages should never be deleted, but rather blanked if there is anything offensive. Benny the mascot (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh go on! Prove my bloody point for me; let Benny review the effluent this cretin posted and reach into his obviously limited experience of adversarial confrontations online and propose a method of dealing with idiots like this. A comments page for an article should be about the article; not about you being cautioned for disruption and blocked for being a wanker. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * keep page deleted. Admins have authority to remove comments that they deem as offesnive. Admins have authority to determine what constitutes an offensive comment. If a page consists of only a single comment, deleting it is a valid method of removing a comment. (This seems common sense to me, but i also feel that this is implied by Comment_Space "Users on comments pages are expected to abide at all times by Etiquette. The most common breaches of Etiquette are failures to be civil and the closely related problem of engaging in personal attacks.") Bawolff ☺☻ 05:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Bawolff's edit summary pretty much sums it up for me: I'm not comfortable having this amount of "red tape". Blatant personal attacks should be removed. Personally, it doesn't matter that much to me whether they're simply blanked or outright deleted; the main thing is to get them out of immediate view. Note that we don't censor legitimate comments on commentary pages that are relevant to the corresponding articles, and/or are not ad hominem attacks against other contributors; I've seen people with a neo-Nazi POV post comments, and their remarks were never removed or otherwise censored, since they weren't attacking any contributor, or randomly trolling (as is the case here). <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  05:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Transparency of administrative actions is important obviously, but the whole point of having admins is to use the mop and bucket wisely to keep Wikinews as a reputable site for news, not for general trolling. All decent sites I know have some sort of moderation with house rules. If we really need policy for this, I'll go ahead and create WN:TROLLING to deal with similar situations, but I hope that we don't need to get to the point where we tie ourselves up in red tape. One of the reasons that I personally prefer Wikinews to Wikipedia, where I am also active, is that so far I haven't seen any Wikilawyering where&mdash;to my mind&mdash;the decision is bleedin' obvious, but someone is prepared to argue for days over the interpretation of a subclause. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 11:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * —we need a WN:NPA policy to cover this, to avoid confusion and contention in future. <em style="color:blue">Den <em style="color:red">dodge  T\C 12:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Before drafting anything on no personal attacks we'd need a policy against wikilawyering. A no personal attacks policy could be abused to disrupt the community. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems like WN:IAR already is a policy against wikilawyering. And given that there's a policy against wikilawyering, WN:E already covers no personal attacks.  --Pi zero (talk) 14:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)