Wikinews:Deletion requests/Archives/2011

Template:Foreign language
Superseded by. I suggest that we replace the content with  . — μ 00:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments

 * Are you proposing to delete it, or proposing to replace its content? --Pi zero (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm proposing that, if the final verdict is 'redirect', that, rather of #REDIRECTing, we stick the code outlined above in instead, allowing the {[tlx|delete}} template to parse the appropriate parameter (a simple redir will result in the equivalent of, a copy/paste will result in , a much more meaningful result. I'm ambivalent as to whether we delete or replace the code. — μ 01:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Votes

 * No great loss Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 14:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:W
DR-status
 * Deletion request filed on January 29; expires 5 February 2011.

Nominated two or three times, is a throwback from before, I assume, the pipetrick of Main Page came into existence. It's a pointless template; why would we ever use it when such functionality is built into MediaWiki itself?

Whilst you're here, admire the new DR system (or send hate mail). — μ 22:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments

 * Separate files for each deletion request is way too much bureaucratic red tape. That's a potent evil of Wikipedias that might be required for a huge and sprawling project, but is neither necessary nor desirable for our small and inherently centralized project here.  Diego changed the RFPs page to do something like this, we quickly got a consensus to undo it, and you're reminding me that although I finally got around to fixing the first section (requests for adminship), I've only gotten as far as figuring out how to fix the rest of the sections of RFP.  --Pi zero (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's relatively easy to revert (it's lots of deletions and a rollback), but I quite like the idea that things like update automatically. If anything, I think that RfAs perhaps are the likeliest candidate for subpages, as you can easily associate it with users. It's been done with AR, so I assumed that it'd be fine to do so here. — μ 23:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about why the separate AR pages don't bother me. AR is peculiar in that, if it's successful, at any time thereafter one should be able to authenticate the consensus discussion, which means having the discussion's revision history at one's fingertips.  That's only feasible if the entire discussion took place in the first place on a dedicated page.  Most of our consensus discussions mainly need to be authenticated at the time the discussion ends, so later we're happy to rely on a repository archive.  --Pi zero (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems like Blood Red Sandman has reverted the change. Diego Grez return fire 23:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "is a throwback from before, I assume, the pipetrick of w:Main Page came into existence" As an aside, I believe the pipetrick existed before we (as a project) existed.  Bawolff ☺☻ 23:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Votes

 * Supposedly it was designed for the lazy people... but AFAIK, nobody uses this template anymore.   it and  it. Diego Grez return fire 22:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are we having this discussion again? Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 23:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's still here, it's still pointless, and as far as I can tell, the last DR was closed as delete, but was still kept. — μ 23:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So in other words, we have to go through the whole discussion all over again instead of somebody mopping up the result of the last discussion? Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 23:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Or someone could speedy it. — μ 23:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This came up because I mentioned I might want to reuse the name "Template:w" for something that has somewhat different, and maybe even remotely useful, behavior. If we can get rid of the useless existing template, that leaves the way free and clear for a possible different use of the name.  So I'm in favor of .  I'm not going to speedy it since I have an ulterior motive, but if someone else wants to speedy it on the basis of previous consensus, I won't shed a tear.  --Pi zero (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * as an unneeded template, but don't forget there are several articles that use it for some reason. Tempodivalse [talk]  23:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Accreditation requests/shakeelgilgity
This was proposed for speedy, but since I didn't see it obviously fitting the criteria and we take accreditation requests pretty seriously, I figured it should be brought up here. This was created mid-last-year by a user who never did anything else here before or since, and didn't link the request from anywhere else. --Pi zero (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nominator. --Pi zero (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ; I came across this when using Special:PrefixIndex to categorise requests properly; the user neglected to post this to the main WN:AR page, so no-one noticed. Hopefully, that problem's slightly less severe now that the AR count on increment automatically, meaning that people are far more likely to spot & catch it. As the AR request never, to all intents and purposes, actually took place, I see no reason for keeping it. — μ 14:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * per π0. Diego Grez return fire 15:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Accreditation requests/Lance Gurwell
Largely as, but for an exchange on xyr user talk with Brian McNeil. --Pi zero (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nominator. --Pi zero (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * per above — μ 14:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * per π0. Diego Grez return fire 15:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Chitral
We aren't systematically creating categories for any class of places to which this belongs, and apparently string "Chitral" doesn't occur at all in mainspace. --Pi zero (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nominator. --Pi zero (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * . Google says there's three mentions of Chitral, but not once in mainspace, rendering it useless. — μ 00:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * per nominator. Diego Grez return fire 00:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

February 17, 2011
Marked as historical. Diego Grez return fire 01:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Manual log pages
Pages have been superseded by Special:Logs. — μ 10:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Upload log
 * Deletion log
 * Protection log
 * Bureaucrat log
 * Block log

Comments
I have to agree with Diego Grez, below. I think this is the only history of those earliest administrative actions. -  Amgine | t 04:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The single still-visible entry for the upload log is visible on Image:Wiki.png; a random click on one of the deletion logs shows that the revision is still there. I'd hazard a guess that all the other administrative actions are, in fact, logged in the database. — μ 10:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Votes
Please vote using, , , or followed by signature
 * — μ 10:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Dunno, I'd rather like them tagged as historical or something, instead of being deleted. Diego Grez return fire 15:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Diego. Its not like we're running out of disk space (not that deleting stuff saves disk space). Bawolff ☺☻ 04:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to outright delete, but make damn sure nobody decides to try and use them again. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 11:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Mark as historical No need to delete them, just tag it with historical. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 11:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * per above. Δεν δοδγε  t\c 13:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

February 28, 2011

 * Deleted. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Old prepared stories
A collection of stories prepped under WN:SP but never developed into articles when the event happened. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 2010 California general election results (November 2010)
 * 2010 FIFA World Cup final (July 2010)
 * Wikinews visits UCLA Festival of Books 2010 (2010, presumably)
 * America's Next Top Model contestants (work ended in 2008)
 * Cindy Sheehan (Election was held)
 * Former United States Bureau of Reclamation head Floyd Dominy dies (April 2010)
 * Investigations expand over Delta bomb plot (most intensive investigations over)
 * Non-traditional Methodist Church holds 3rd Anniversary Celebration (October 2010)
 * The Young and the Restless cast (March 2008)
 * Two Airlines ground A380 Fleet (A380s are currently flying without major known standing problems)

Votes etc

 * as nom Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * , with one proviso: on principle, we should at least leave a note on Mike Halterman's user page about xyr two (TYATR and ANTM); so if xe wants them moved to xyr user space, we can do that (either before or after conclusion of this RFD). --Pi zero (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ I left a note. --Pi zero (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * . Insert some dysphemism for 'delete' here. — μ 09:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * all of these are too old to publish, even if the Halterman interviews were done, they too are outdated whether or not original. If it desired to move to his user-space, then fine by me. --SVTCobra 00:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * per nom. (Although, they /could/ be deleted as "Stale article, old news" or similar (which is under the speedy deletion criteria AFAIK)) Diego Grez return fire 01:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

March 1, 2011

 * Closed. A massive grab-bag. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Untranscluded templates
Here's a selection of dubious untranscluded templates. There's a few hidden gems in there, such as Australian federal election 2010, that should probably be used. However, there's some templates that seem to serve little or no purpose. As a way to stimulate discussion over the list, here's a few examples I picked up on:
 * 2010 South Australian election
 * main puppy
 * Linked on Google News
 * QuakerDevelop
 * QuakerPublish
 * Quakers new page
 * total fluff
 * WoW
 * xt
 * — μ 12:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Prolly shouldn't be done as a mass delete discussion - which is why people aren't commenting. These are a real grab bag of historical, usable and useless templates all jumbled together. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Explicit
Wikinews is not censored, and it is not our place to decide what counts as explicit. Is the F-word explicit? What about the word "bloody"? By a devout Muslim, a picture of a woman's ankles would be considered explicit - by most of us, it wouldn't. The point is, different people have different ideas about what counts as explicit, and we can let them decide for themselves. Δεν δοδγε  t\c 17:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom. Δεν δοδγε  t\c 17:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * --Pi zero (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * per nom. Diego Grez return fire 17:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe we've already done this with a similar template, but I can't think what one. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Prof Erantha De Mel.jpg
Orphaned image, unable to source origin, therefore dubious copyright.

Votes
Please vote using, , , or followed by signature
 * . Wortheless image since it is orphaned. Per nom -- Nascar 1996  (talk • contribs) 14:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Scientists create schizophrenic brain cells
Moving discussion here from talk page; suggest retraction notice and revdel as potential options. — μ 22:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC) [edited]

Votes
Please vote using, , , or followed by signature


 * % Gryllida talk 22:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I mean replace with retraction notice, but not history removal. Gryllida 00:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * retraction [if its that bad], but revision delete. We shouldn't try and cover up how we screwed up. It should be left in the history. There is nothing of a sensitive nature in the article. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * - needs to be replaced with a retraction notice, and all revisions deleted. There is every reason to revdel it. The words wrong, wrong and wrong on all counts come to mind. BarkingFish (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * revdelete, sweeping things under the rug and grinning is a Bad Thing. Wikinews should be transparent as possible, not hidden behind an opaque wall like the MSM are. I do support the retraction notice. Tempodivalse [talk]  22:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We're not sweeping it under the rug. We're removing all revisions of an article with potentially misleading data, information of an incorrect nature and making sure it's gone, period. I'd say that's good enough cause to revdel it. BarkingFish (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, what you just described *is* "sweeping it under the rug". We need to acknowledge our mistake so readers who read the article can realise that the information wasn't reliable. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  22:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Since it isn't a copyvio. Though I understand BarkingFish's reasoning that it's not sweeping it under the rug since we're issuing a retraction notice, I do think deletion should be reserved for copyvio and libel.
 * Noting the remarkable lack of correlation between voting positions and icons, I was tempted to use . --Pi zero (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There have been worse mistakes made in the history of this site when it comes to incorrect info. We standby our mistakes. Always have, always will. The only time we delete is per what Tempo says: copyvio, libel and anything Mike Godwin thinks would get WMF and Wikinews in legal hot water. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What mistakes have been worse? Maybe a hoax being published? Could you give me some examples of "worse". It is not a matter of a little correction. The whole article, based on a press release, is biased, promotes a specific drug and shows a muddled understanding of neurology. Plus contains an irrelevant image, the caption of which I corrected. But it should be removed. Mattisse (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikimedia Foundation announces departure of general counsel Mike Godwin. --Pi zero (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, of course. if necessary. &lt;considers cussing that Amgine actually is forced to vote on something.&gt; - <span style="font: italic 10pt/12pt cursive;"> Amgine | t  14:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * . Per Amgine's reasoning; this is Wikinews, not the Ministry of Truth. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Or carefully written correction notice pointing out all the misinformation, including the image. It is more important that articles on medical subjects be accurate and free from bias, as people use that information in their own lives. Promoting a drug and giving false information about a condition afflicting many people should be removed. Even the photo was mislabeled as brain cells and is irrelevant to the article. If a retraction or correct notice is added, care must be taken to give correct neurological information as well as removing the reliance on the press release. The specific drug shout not be mentioned as it is not necessary to describe the facts of the article. There are hundreds of anti-psychotic drugs and the study used only five (chosen how?) The overly optimistic quotes from the researcher should be removed, unless confirmed by another source. It is a very very preliminary study, a test tube study using the skin of four "hereditary" schizophrenics when most people with schizophrenia have no family history. And any real world applications of the findings of this one study, if confirmed, are years and years away. Please read the superior sources the IP provided to see how far off the mark this article is. The importance lies in the procedure and not in the specific drugs. This is a study funded by interest groups, including the pharmaceutical company.
 * The current article is not correct per today's standards, so it is not a "snapshot" of anything than a factually incorrect, biased article at the time it was written and published, demonstrating wikinews publishes medically inaccurate articles. It is not a small "error" that a little banner can correct. Unless the banner says: "This is an inaccurate and biased article. Please disregard its contents."
 * Or get rid of this article and write another, correct article using the superior IP sources. It is not stale yet.   Mattisse (talk) 22:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * the article history from the memory hole but support a full retraction because of the inaccuracies raised on the talk page, and the concerns about promotion of a particular drug. the wub "?!"  23:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe keep as an example of wikinews worst? Is there a category for that? Mattisse (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Cf. category:Corrected articles <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  23:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You beat me to it, Tempo :-). I tend to think we're better at detecting mistakes now, so the early years of the project are apt to have greater error rate than is observable via the category.
 * The point is to own up to our mistakes. Copyvio and libel get deleted; mere mistakes (even awful ones) may be removed from the current revision, but can be viewed in the page history if someone has a reason to go to that trouble.  --Pi zero (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Fidel Castro 102006.jpg
Isn't Cubavisión a competing news organization (it's a Cuban TV channel, but anyway...) アンパロ Io ti odio! 02:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Votes

 * Does not qualify for fair use (unless we claim historical importance... or something) アンパロ Io ti odio! 02:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Symbol userfy vote.svg Replace with a free image. — μchip08 02:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever the source, this is not a screen-shot. So at best it is mis-labeled. --SVTCobra 02:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless the image is violating copyright, I think it should be kept. The fact that Cubavision is a "competing news source" is a reg herring, again, unless there is a legitimate copyright issue.Tadpole256 (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WN:FU — μchip08 13:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Cubavision is, indeed, a competing news organization. That being the case, we don't actually need a DR for this; it could be speedy-deleted.  Cf. WN:SD, WN:FU.  --Pi zero (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * though I note that very rarely it is appropriate to use an image from a competing news source - but only if the image itself is central to the story (e.g. the newspaper was prosecuted for it). Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 14:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Symbol userfy vote.svg Replace or . WN:FU is clear.  — fetch · comms  02:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * . We probably don't want to replace it directly, as all the articles it is used in are archived. the wub "?!"  22:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Americas
This is an unused and useless complication to the category hierarchy. It was created during a proposal to merge the three Americas into one portal, which didn't happen; in the unlikely event we ever decide it's worth the huge hassle to do that, we can easily recreate (or undelete) it; and meanwhile it's (as I said at the top) just clutter in the category hierarchy. --Pi zero (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nominator. --Pi zero (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * as the present system for categorisation works just fine. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 14:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * per nom. アンパロ Io ti odio! 14:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Worthless category for categories.  — fetch · comms  02:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * not needed. -- Nascar <font color=" #1234aa">1996  (talk • contribs) 16:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * per nominator. No need for this extra complication. the wub "?!"  22:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Drink, Portal:Drink, Wikinews Importer Bot/Drink
It's always great to see benevolent sororal interest (in the spirit of w:WP:SISTER). Unfortunately, the category is unpopulated and pretty sure to stay that way. These pages were recently created by User:Jerem43, a well-established Wikipedian (circa 40,000 edits since 2006), and the DPL is imported to w:Portal:Drink. I'd certainly like it if there were an alternative approach for the importer, but I don't see one. --Pi zero (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Votes, comments, etc.
Have you notified the Wikipedia people? — μchip08 14:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * - I just checked those pages and they are populated. --Jerem43 (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * w:User talk:Jerem43. --Pi zero (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * , could be populated with Bottled water concerns health experts, Bottled water in Canada recalled due to arsenic concerns, Calls for bottled water bans grow in Canada, Dairy cattle with names produce more milk, according to new study, Cloned cattle's milk and meat seem safe, according to new study, Venezuela bans Coke Zero over unspecified health problems, Study suggests 48% of US soda fountain machines have coliform bacteria, FDA says Coca-Cola's Diet Coke Plus is misbranded, and others in Category:Food.  — fetch · comms  16:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (I was tentatively delete prior to Fetchcomms' research, assuming no alternative solution was found) I see keeping Food and Drink separate as possibly difficult. We could merge them into (gasp) Food and drink, but that would be a fail for the importer bot and hence of less use to the WPians. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If we're keeping "Food" and "Drink" as separate categories, we may wish to create category "Food and drink" as a parent for both, as this would likely help us remember to consider these possibilities when categorizing. Curiously enough, Wikipedia has a category "Food and drink", but not "Food" or "Drink".  (The latter are both soft redirects, "Food" to "Foods" and "Drink" to "Beverages".)  --Pi zero (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * per Fetchcomms finding enough to make them worthwhile. on creating Category:Feck and Category:Arse. the wub  "?!"  17:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: These are encyclopedic categories, not news categories. People do not search news for 'drink', though they might search for 'drunk'. Not an encyclopedia. - <span style="font: italic 10pt/12pt cursive;"> Amgine | t 18:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My practical concern is with our ability to usefully maintain categories (in regard to which I'm mostly studying the problem cases, in search of general remedies that might be applied, only occasionally attempting to fix individual glitches). Category:Drink does concern me in this regard.  We do well with categories for areas (countries, cities, whatever), people, and organizations, and to some extent events (the Deepwater Horizon oil spill is one I've been around a lot lately, e.g.), but any category outside those classes should come with clear inclusion criteria and, ideally, some sort of recipe for manually checking to bring it up to date if it's slipped. --Pi zero (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * People don't search news for "United Kingdom", "Politics and conflicts" or pretty much any of our categories - that's not what they're for. Where they are extremely useful is creating a custom feed for elsewhere, as on the WP portal. Admittedly there aren't many articles, but if the Drinks WikiProject have a problem with that they can come and help out - and I placed a message to that effect. the wub "?!"  22:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you saying we are maintaining our categories for Wikipedia, the wub? - <span style="font: italic 10pt/12pt cursive;"> Amgine | t 23:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course it's not just for Wikipedia. And really, is it all that much effort to "maintain" a single category? Seems like almost as much effort to delete it if you ask me. the wub "?!"  00:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, some categories are really problematic to maintain, while others are quite easy to maintain. Area cats can be pretty easy to maintain, because it occurs to people that they do, or at least that they might, exist.  But contrast that with, say, Category:Targeted killing, which I find it hard to believe can be maintained well in the long run because it wouldn't occur to people that it might exist, so they'd be unlikely to add relevant articles to it.  I haven't nominated that one for deletion because I'd want to investigate its backstory before doing so; but Category:Drink is a newly minted category and I felt more comfortable with my understanding of its backstory.  --Pi zero (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A quote from the relevant portion of WN:NOT:
 * Wikinews is not an encyclopedia; that is, it is not an in-depth collection of non-newsworthy information. Just because something is a true fact doesn't mean it is suitable for inclusion here.
 * Another important quote from WN:NOT is:
 * When you wonder what should or should not be in an article named "whatever", ask yourself what a reader would expect under "whatever" from a trusted news provider.
 * (all emphasis removed,to avoid biasing.) May I ask anyone here to point to a trusted news provider who maintains categories such as Drink or Targeted killing? Or even tags articles that way? - <span style="font: italic 10pt/12pt cursive;"> Amgine | t 20:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hopefully it's clear by now I'm not a fan of either of those two categories. However, those two quoted passages don't come into my thinking on this, because they are about the information content of articles, and categorization is not information content of articles.  I want categorization to enhance us as a news site, so when it doesn't I look for a remedy, hence my discomfort with those two categories; but if it does enhance us, I'm not fussed whether it would also enhance an encyclopedia, nor whether it is or isn't something other news sites do.  --Pi zero (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I don't see the relevance of those quotes here.
 * One of the elements of our mission statement is that Wikinews will "provide an alternative to proprietary news agencies like the Associated Press or Reuters; that is, it will allow independent media outfits to get a high quality feed of news free of charge to complement their own reporting." This is what I'm really thinking about for these categories. And yes, Reuters does break down its stories into very fine categories for the benefit of its feed consumers - in fact they have three separate categories for beverages . I'm not sure about AP, their categories don't seem to be publically viewable. the wub "?!"  22:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per Amgine. Though the proposal to create a "Foods and beverages" is kind of good. アンパロ Io ti odio! 21:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; per The wub. None of our categories are useful for searching, but that isn't their purpose (that's what Google is for, frankly, and we're not here to compete with them, even if we could). The purpose of these categories is to categorize articles (shockingly!) by general archetypes, mostly for external feeds. I actually can't think of a single internal use for (content based, non-technical) categories on Wikinews at the moment. Maybe one day when portals become more important... Gopher65talk 05:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Food and drink would, as a sub-category of Health, make a great deal of sense - and do so from a news POV in addition to an encyclopedic one. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that's an excellent point: as a subcategory of Culture and entertainment, it's fluff (the appropriate Wikibooks sister link would be Cookbook), but as a subcategory of Health, it's news. --Pi zero (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was bold and placed both Category:Food and Category:Drink into Health, notwithstanding the outcome of this discussion. Frankly I'm baffled as to why they weren't there before. the wub "?!"  22:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I consider drink to be a type of food. I think both should be covered under Category:Food. (I also think the cat should keep being named food and not be renamed). Bawolff ☺☻ 02:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge this category into "Food" to make "Food and drink", it's the most logical and useful solution. If that's not possible, per arguments above. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse  <font face="Georgia">[talk]  15:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Bombardier Canadair Regional Jet and Category:Bombardier Group
The first category is encyclopedic; its parent cat could in theory be of use but I don't believe the situation has changed since I created similar for Airbus and Boeing - Bombardier lacks the article count to justify it, having only one or two possible candidates. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Votes, comments etc

 * — μchip08 10:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * --Brian McNeil / talk 10:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * , useless and very unlikely to be populated.  — fetch · comms  16:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * as far too specialised for categories. the wub "?!"  17:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * per avove アンパロ Io ti odio! 21:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; note that Canadair Regional Jet = CRJ. So all those stories about CRJ-700s and CRJ-200s (made by Bombardier) could populate one of those categories. A simple google search for CRJ on this site turned up 3 articles about CRJs in the first page of results. I didn't investigate further, but even those articles alone would be enough to keep a Bombardier (or CRJ) category. Gopher65talk 05:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm reluctant to start categorising articles on aviation accidents and incidents by the model of aircraft involved. I'd certainly oppose doing so by the aircraft manufacturer. (Side-note: The manufacturer will always play a role in investigations, however; reporting on that role would make them an intrinsic part of the story and hence eligible for the cat.) This is mainly an intuitive thing on my part, though others may feel more strongly. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Bombardier DeHavilland Canada Dash 8
This is an encyclopedic category, not a news category. It has no articles in it. --SVTCobra 00:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Votes
Please vote using, , , or followed by signature
 * as nominator. --SVTCobra 00:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * - There's another of these floating round for the CRJ somewhere as well. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 00:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * useless アンパロ Io ti odio! 01:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment there are many articles on it though.  65.93.12.8 (talk) 06:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Story preparation
As stale isn't actually an speedy deletion criteron:
 * Wikinews:Story preparation/2008-09 DFB Cup: First Round Results
 * Wikinews:Story preparation/2008-09 Bundesliga: Matchday 1
 * Wikinews:Story preparation/2008 Franz Beckenbauer Cup: F.C. Bayern München vs. F.C. Internazionale Milano
 * Story preparation/2008 Summer Olympics open in Beijing
 * Story preparation/Bavarian State Election 2008 results
 * — μchip08 22:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Votes
Please vote using, , , or followed by signature
 * Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ; this should be grounds for speedy. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree: abandoned should/is a speedy deletion criteron, and is sufficent/better for our purposes. — μchip08 21:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been known to use that template on stale prepared stories; but that prolly isn't ideal. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

General disclaimer TLDR
This is "Wikipedia-esque", and could be construed as saying we're unreliable. That makes an utter nonsense of all the work done to introduce independent review.

This page should never have been imported from Wikipedia, seemingly in violation of their copyright terms, and should be removed in short order. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Discussed briefly in irc:wikimedia; legal counsel notified. — μchip08 21:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments

 * The wording is at-odds with how Wikinews operates; it is, additionally, a "technical" copyvio as a direct import from Wikipedia. It should be completely reworked to reflect reality - if retained. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't say it shouldn't be reworked; that might be a good idea actually, although I strongly feel the general gist of the disclaimer should remain. Look at the BBC or Al Jazeera, they all have similar disclaimers as an extra precaution to prevent liability. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  15:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me have a look at MSM disclaimers... --Brian McNeil / talk 16:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The general disclaimer is necessary per the software; I believe it is also necessary per WMF legal counsel but that should be clarified. This wording should likely be improved/replaced. I believe I did an initial round of disclaimers, primarily drawn from WP, around this time - they should all be reviewed en masse. - <span style="font: italic 10pt/12pt cursive;"> Amgine | t 22:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does have a goal to have accurate, encyclopedic information. One knowledgeable user can contribute to an article on his own by adding relevant, sourced information relatively easily - what makes accuracy difficult to guarantee is mainly the wiki's size, in addition to being open to public. Wikinews tries to deliver news in a neutral manner - that is something one user can not always do on his own. This is why flagged revisions system is in place. However it does not elevate the neutrality of the news in any way since they are by their nature debatable, and it is not uncommon for the sources to be are one-sided. This is why, in my opinion, even despite the work of a few people on one news story, the disclaimer stays relevant. Gryllida 09:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I agree that a disclaimer is needed, a note is in order concerning wp, wn, and flaggedrevs. Wp aspires to upward-trending accuracy.  It does not aspire to reliability (it explicitly does not aspire to reliability): the intended upward trend in accuracy assumes averaging out fluctuations over short periods of time.  Flaggedrevs, besides making it possible to enforce the requirement of peer review (which is necessary for us to be news site rather than blog, no matter how respected might be the primary author of an article), also makes it possible to present our general readership with a version of the article that is not subject to uncontrolled short-term fluctuations (such as, in the extreme, vandalism).  --Pi zero (talk) 12:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * . iirc this was bought over back when we used the same licences, back in our really early days. We have always thus had this around Brian | (Talk) &#124; New Zealand Portal 08:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Disclaimers in the MSM

 * 1) CNN's; section 6 of T+C.
 * 2) Al Jazeera's; section 6 of T+C
 * I will, for the time being, be bold and make a couple of edits to "tone down" the we're unreliable aspect of the disclaimer. Beyond that, I'm pleased to see there's a wide consensus for a rewrite. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * From a legal perspective, we definitely need to maintain a disclaimer on the site that retains the substance of the present disclaimer. There is no doubt that the Wikinews community has earned a well-deserved reputation for accuracy, but mistakes can always happen and we need to be clear that liability does not lie with us if there is an error. The other parts of the disclaimer are also relevant to Wikinews. I would therefore hesitate making any substantive changes.  Geoffbrigham (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nominator. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * , this page is built-into the list of links that shows at the bottom of every page. Most reputable news sites have a disclaimer notice, and we need to have one too. It's a legal thing, to prevent potential frivolous lawsuits by people who said "Hey, I was mislead by a wrong article/blah blah". Don't quote me on this, but I think all WMF projects might be required to have a disclaimer actually. All projects on the wiki farm AFAICS have them, and we could draw some unwanted attention from the office if we zapped it. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  15:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Total rewrite. I'm utterly unconcerned wether or not the delete button is hit, but I suggest actually having something to replace it before doing so if it is deleted. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You may have issues with the text of the disclaimer, but (as a non-lawyer) I would speculate that removing this page would have significant legal or financial implications beyond your stated purpose . The page should not be removed or significantly altered without input from the WMF counsel. Until then the onus is on the nominator to show that removing this page does no harm. Also, I see no justification for your assertion that such a disclaimer reduces credibility. Other reputable media sources have similar disclaimers. Supporters of the RfD must first show that having such a disclaimer reduces credibility in the mind of a typical user. NeilK (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * , provided a rewrite is allowed under WMF rules - I expect we would need the input of the WMF legal counsel. DEN  DODGE  22:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * - a) I personally think the general disclaimer is well written and accurately describe us (minor points don't address flagged revisions as it perhaps should, but the main drift is correct and accurate). b) This is a legal document and should be under the purview of wmf legal folks, not the community. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Gryllida 08:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Draft a replacement, clear it with legal counsel, and delete the old The current version both is phrased in a way insulting to our procedures, and seems to be itself a technical copyvio. We should replace it and then delete the old version, but we definitely mustn't do the replacement until we've cleared the new version with legal counsel.  --Pi zero (talk) 12:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (after Dendodge). Whether Brian McNeil, InfantGorilla or anyone else writes or reviews an article, I don't want to give an implied warranty that could be enforced for monetary damages. Also I don't want to risk tinkering with the foundation's safe harbor protection without permission from the foundation. (I suspect a technical consequence of deletion would be a red link on every page unless we got a Developer to remove the link from <tt>skins/Monobook.php</tt> .) (See also  ) --InfantGorilla (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * - don't delete without replacement. These disclaimers have always been a bit freeform on the various projects, and could use improvement.  A rewrite is certainly 'allowed' -- the disclaimer pages on various projects were not developed initially by WMF counsel, but over time by contributors - though I expect WMF legal staff have looked at some of the English-language disclaimers from time to time.  Getting input from current counsel is a good idea.  Personally, I would love to see us lose the bold text which you should presumably read more carefully than all that other text. sj (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Community Mirror
An utterly obsolete idea that never got off the ground; made redundant by FlaggedRevs. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments, votes etc

 * as nom Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * --Brian McNeil / talk 18:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * this already has the historical tag ... there is a great fondness for keeping a trail of the Wikinews evolution (at least there was when I was active). --SVTCobra 01:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This represents a part of our history and should be kept with the historical tag. --Cspurrier (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the first time I've ever heard of this, but I see no reason to delete old documents that don't cause problems. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * for historical reasons. Mattisse (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I could understand the historical argument if it were an old policy, but as far as I can make out, it's just an idea some user had, that never took off the ground. There's no reason to keep what is essentially a malformed, incomplete, failed proposal that will never see relevance in the future. — μchip08 11:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * and move to a subpage of Craig's userspace. No need to delete anything that some people feel has historical value.  sj (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * it and move it to the user's place, No need to remove it--Superlightoftruth (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Story preparation/Tens of thousands protest government in Belgrade, Serbia
This was created in February, tagged as abandoned but then moved into story prep in case more protests happened in April. Whether they did or not, it's now the end of June. --Bencherlite (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC).

Comments

 * Oops, sorry, I'd been meaning to take care of this, and then it just slipped my mind. --Pi zero (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Votes
Please vote using, , , or followed by signature

Story preparation/Flash floods hit mainland Britain
In the event of flash floods hitting the UK, I suspect someone will start a new article from scratch, rather than think "Oh, hang on, isn't there a skeleton of an article from 2007 kicking around somewhere?" --Bencherlite (talk) 08:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC).

Votes
Please vote using, , , or followed by signature
 * - agree with nom ... prep from 2007 is useless. --SVTCobra 23:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've never quite understood this one's original purpose. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Reading the revision history, all text was by IPs. My guess is it exists because it was never quite speediable and nobody who noticed it ever wanted it gone enough to bother with a DR.  --Pi zero (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Conservatism
One Cat and one Portal, both of which are somewhat encyclopedic and not suited to a news site. The portal, in particular, could never conceivably see enough use to justify separating it from the cat. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 11:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments

 * Question What does "somewhat encyclopedic" mean? Lionelt (talk) 11:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for BRS, obviously. But I suggest the difficulty is that an encyclopedia may try to sort articles into subjective abstract categories, and a news site cannot and should not be trying to do that.  Wikinews does best with concrete categories:  people, places, and things (including companies, government institutions, and the like).  We want categories with the following two properties:
 * If you ask whether a given article should belong to the category, the yes/no answer to that is pretty much clear and objective.
 * Given an arbitrary article, if it should belong in the category, that category will naturally spring to mind to anyone considering categorizing the article.
 * --Pi zero (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Can we compose a usage note that makes it fairly clear and objective which articles should belong to this category? (I suspect not, but I'm open to being shown otherwise.) --Pi zero (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Votes

 * Keep Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is not an encyclopedia. But let's examine the encyclopedia-ness of Conservatism on an encyclopedia we're all familiar with: Wikipedia. Currently there are 2560 articles identified by WikiProject Conservatism that relate to Conservatism. There are 32 project members working on Conservatism articles. Dozens more editors have created a Conservatism showcase containing 22 Featured Articles, 11 Featured Media and 36 Good Articles. There is a portal featuring a Wikinews feed. To the dozens of editors who have created high quality articles, and the countless more who have worked on the 2560 articles, Conservatism is most assuredly an encyclopedic topic. Wikinews will only benefit from the availability of high quality content. Likewise, Wikipedia will benefit from well written news stories about Conservatism particularly as the US election season begins. That's why it is critical to keep Category:Conservatism. Lionelt (talk) 12:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Since Wikinews categories exist primarily for the purposes of reader navigation, they should be as defined as possible. "Aviation" is a general category, but it's fairly easy to see what should go into it. But what exactly should go into categories named "conservatism" and "liberalism"? Those are broadly defined categories with little meaning in the real world, and thus almost any article could be twisted to fit into one of those categories by a pushy editor. Indeed, even defining the words themselves is problematic to the point that we'd be starting a flame war if we tried it (the words mean very different things in different countries, for one thing. "liberal" (small 'L') in the US is very different than "liberal" in Europe, and neither of those accurately describes "liberal" in Canada).


 * To cut my ramble short, having this category is no different than having meaningless categories like "pool" (which use to exist before being deleted), "sunshine", or, more pertinent to the current case, the now deleted "government" category. Any content category so broad that almost any story can be wedged into it serves no purpose and should be deleted. Gopher65talk 13:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This is an encyclopedic category and serves no newsworthy purpose herein. We neither have Category:Socialism or Category:Communism; nor do any mainstream news sources categorise their categories thus. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Bin it - Per Brian McNeil and Gopher65. This is a category for Wikipedia. We are not Wikipedia. We are the Borg Wikinews. You will be assimilated, resistance is futile :) Sink it. BarkingFish (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The sole reason for the cat is for w:portal:Conservatsm which is nominated for Featured Portal. The portal currently employs a bot to import a Wikinews feed from "Politics and conflicts." It is great exposure for WN. However a reviewer wants the scope of the feed narrowed or eliminate WN. I'd like to keep the linkage with WN but if there's no cat we'll have to replace WN with Wikiquote. Not meant to be a threat: just reality. We could consider it an "administrative" cat; even make it hidden. Lionelt (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not meant to be a threat, clearly looks like one. If you want to replace it with Wikiquote, that's Wikipedia's call, not ours. It's wonderful that it's nominated for Featured Portal, but Wikipedia's processes should not, and WON'T interfere with ours. Vote stands, please bin the portal. BarkingFish (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would concur; WN is not WP and we are not governed by what they do. FWIW, I rather agree with the suggestion WQ might be more appropriate in this particular case. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Although it would cut Wikinews' exposure on Wikipedia, I agree with that editor. Not every story from "politics and conflicts" should be showing up in a Wikipedia cat named "conservatism". That's kinda silly:). (Actually so is our politics and conflicts category. It's another example of an ill-defined cat that should be replaced with 2 or 3 better defined (but almost as broad) categories.) Gopher65talk 13:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems the major sections (politics and conflicts, etc.) serve a different function from the smaller abstract categories, and have distinctly different dynamics. Breaking up those major section categories might make things much worse, creating problems for both of the criteria I listed above: the smaller categories could be harder to keep track of and harder to apply to any given article.


 * The hierarchical relationships between abstract categories are now a horrible mess; abstract categories should (I'm realizing) rarely have strict containment relationships, and when they should is obscured by lack of clear inclusion criteria. I'm working on a strategy for improving that &mdash; moving very slowly with extreme caution, as there's a vast amount of valuable work been done on categorization over the years, that takes extreme delicacy to tease apart from troublesome structure we'd be better off without.


 * BTW, note I haven't yet voted on this nomination. I'll add a specific question above.  --Pi zero (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Politics and conflicts should be considered as-if a continent in terms of how broadly inclusive it is.--Brian McNeil / talk 01:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * per above. This is US biased. Also, the Conservatism portal and WikiProject on Wikipedia is also US biased. I doubt the portal will have any conservative topics on Wikinews, but not likely. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions)  06:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not the the currently included articles are properly categorized within this Cat; it suggests an undue burden and a crazy evaluation of dividing articles into "Conservatism" or "Liberalism" or countless others. A gross violation of the neutrality policy. --SVTCobra 23:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * SVTCobra makes an excellent point about neutrality. --Pi zero (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theory goes to U.S. Court in Denver
This is utter twaddle. The author, and suspected subject of the article, is blowing out of all proportion the submission of sheer tinfoil-hattery to a court in Denver. The individual named has no reason to be newsworthy, and the content is wild speculation instead of news.

I am nominating this for a formal deletion process to send a clear message that Wikinews cannot be exploited, nor should it be disrupted, to support the ends of conspiracy theorist loons. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments

 * This is b*ll*cks, please don't turn this page into a theatre or war or I'll apply preventative blocks to allow the process to continue. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This article has been raised for Arbitration. As there is concern that the maintenace of the article on the website may impair Wikinews trust, I may concede that deletion is proper as showing of good will. With the caveat that the result of the Arbitration process will control the final disposition of the article. And author is not waiving the arbitration process. Thus if everyone agrees to Arbitration the author would vote for deletion at this time. Stapler80 (talk) 16:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The ArbCom case was rejected. — Mike  moral  ♪♫  18:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There is at least one independent editor (User:Robbygay) that still thinks there is a story here. Pi Zero did think the article had potential but states that now "it would not workout". The allegations that no facts are presented are generally vague and conclusory. No specific facts are challenged. The NPOV policy demands that both sides of a story are treated equally and IMO that has not been the case. Stapler80 (talk) 16:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * News organization IMO have a duty to report when a "test case" of a conspiracy theory with widespread or substantial support is brought to a court of law. As it is the only vehicle to test conspiracy allegations absent a inside whistle blower as in the London phone hacking scandal. In our imperfect world the judiciary needs a watchful eye over it to remain honest. Stapler80 (talk) 16:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Remember that what you are voting is not whether the article, as it is, is publishable. What you are saying is that no amount of deleting and editing would make this a news story. Basically saying that any article that reports a "test case" of a 9/11 conspiracy theory is not publishable. Stapler80 (talk) 16:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a misrepresentation of what I said; I wondered if there were other factors that would provide newsworthiness, and it turned out there weren't. Those voting here understand the issues and implications.  And you are getting what you said you wanted ("be careful what you wish for"): community consensus.
 * If you must say anything more here, be brief: limit yourself to things not already said, and express them using very few words. --Pi zero (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've always been wary of statements along the lines of "it would not work out", since it gets overused all the time. In my (rather brief) experience as an editor, I've learned that it usually just takes a bit of effort on the part of the reviewer to bring an article up to our standards. The neutrality issues can be fixed by having an unbiased contributor rewrite the entire story, and the article's content can be verified online by anyone with access to the PACER databases. In fact, if the documents are needed for further Wikinews-related work (which at the moment seems unlikely), I'm happy to pull up the documents from PACER and republish them onto the Wikimedia Commons, since those documents are in the public domain.
 * However, Wikinews also requires that the article be newsworthy, and this story seems to fail that standard. If I were to rewrite this story, the title would be "9/11 conspiracy theorist's lawsuit could be thrown out for not using proper forms"... now that doesn't sound newsworthy at all, does it? To make this story newsworthy, we need to see 1) coverage in other reputable news sources, or 2) in the case of original reporting, commentary from prominent conspiracy theorists, lawyers, politicians, etc. Basically you'll need Donald Trump to convert from being a birther to being a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. And the burden of establishing newsworthiness is on the writer, not the reviewer, so you must do so before we can even start considering publishing your article. Quite frankly, I too don't think this article will work out...ever (yes, despite the first sentence of my comment). But then again, I've been surprised many times lately. Good luck! :)
 * PS regarding your claim that this story is our only defense against an oppressive judiciary, I should remind you that Wikinews isn't the only community journalism project out there. You're free to send stories to more local projects in Colorado, and you can even start your own blog if you want to. Ragettho (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Skipping straight to the end of Ragettho's comment, yeah, that's true. There are a *lot* of community journalism sites out there. Not all of them have the same requirements or restrictions that Wikinews has, including not requiring a peer review and not requiring NPoV (a Neutral Point of View requirement is very uncommon, even in mainstream journalism). Each site will also have its own unique focus (some specialize in conspiracy claims, both valid and imaginary), and each will have a different bar for newsworthiness.


 * So if you (Stapler80) can't get your article published here, I encourage you to seek out a site more suited to the type of content you like to create. Gopher65talk 21:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

With the above now said, can we restrict discussion to the merits of - or lack thereof - the offending article? --Brian McNeil / talk 23:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Votes

 * --Brian McNeil / talk 09:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not newsworthy and, as Brian says, it's also complete bollocks. My reasoning is explained in the talk page further. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Alas, yes. A formal deletion process is appropriate for this.  Most times, when an article is clearly not going to reach publishability, it is ultimately speedy-deleted as abandoned.  It's not clear whether or not the author in this case is going to concede unpublishability in a timely fashion &mdash;they might, but we shouldn't count on that&mdash; so having this formal process underway gives us an alternative time bound.  And keeping this around for a long time would send a bad message about our credibility, suggesting doubt that does not exist about its unpublishability.  --Pi zero (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * , per all above. Not newsworthy, not-quite-denied allegations of severe CoI, and generally not the kind of thing we should be publishing. DEN  DODGE  George Watson  11:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; NPoV = facts only, presented in as unbiased a way as is possible. NPoV explicitly prevents us from publishing opinion pieces or other non-fact based material. This qualifies, and thus does not - and never will - meet the NPoV requirement for publication. Gopher65talk 12:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * , potentially damaging to the credibility of wikinews.--William S. Saturn (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * or move to userspace, per above comments. Diego the Sailor (talk) 16:58 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * keep the censorship out! Give this original piece a change u BSd crew :) Robajz (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Struck - account created today, this is its only edit, possible sock.  DEN  DODGE  George Watson  20:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * - What an utter, utter pile of tosh. piffle and cobblers. This process will take slightly less than 2 of your earth minutes. Thank You.  Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz of the Hyperspace Planning Council. 11:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Demolition? ZOMG VOGONS DID 9/11!! the wub "?!"  11:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No way this is going to become a publishable article. Moving to userspace may be acceptable if the main author wishes. the wub "?!"  11:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:Canada party leaders
This unused template is encyclopedic by nature; witness the character of the logistical task of keeping it up to date. --Pi zero (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nominator. --Pi zero (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * - I spotted this a few days ago, and considered nominating it, but I forgot about it. It's encyclopedia, and doesn't appear to serve a purpose. DEN  DODGE  George Watson  18:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; It would be a rare article indeed that would require all 4 (actually 5:P) major party leaders in Canada to be pictured. I see no reason to have a template hanging around just in case such an article ever pops up. And if such an story does end up being written, we can just manually insert the photos into the article using a multi-photo template. That would look better anyway. Gopher65talk 19:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that updating it would violate WN:ARCHIVE if it were in-use on articles. That really shows how ill-suited this is to a news org. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

File:El Peluso.jpg
I don't think this image qualifies for fair-use. It is copied from a facebook profile without the user's consent. In my opinion, this is an invasion of privacy. This individual is not notable and did not request for their personal image to be plastered on wikinews or elsewhere on the internet.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Votes

 * Using pictures taken from Facebook is common practice here and elsewhere, as long as it is well used, and this one is used well, describing the attacks on him and his responses (as a troll). I believe it is fine; I may be wrong, though. アンパロ Io ti odio! 01:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * as nominator. If I understand correctly, the troll used the photo but is not the person pictured. It seems he got it from somewhere else, possibly another person's profile.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right, but the attacks to the person in the photo (disregarding if it was a troll or not) El Peluso or whatever his real name is, has been the subject of attacks and massive trolling. That's the newsworthy thing; that, and the comment made by the daughter of the Santiago physician, who declined to comment, as pointed in the article. アンパロ Io ti odio! 22:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

September 23, 2011

 * Note: You were not, and are not, unwelcome here. There may be rumors circulating that lead Wikipedians to expect to be unwelcome here, which of course would tend to make the cultural bridge between the projects harder to cross.  But those rumors are not of our making. --Pi zero (talk) 12:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Conservatism/Wikipedia
I originally thought WikiProject Conservatism could use WikiNews to populate our portal and our newsletter with up-to-date news with the Importer bot. However when the WN Conservatism cat & portal were arbitrarily deleted I got the distinct feeling we weren't welcome. Anyway I was keeping the portal page around in the hopes of recruiting some WPConservatism members to come over here and write stories, but with OpenGlobe up and running we're going to go over there. (--Lionelt (talk) 11:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)).

Votes
Please vote using, , , or followed by signature

December 4, 2011

 * Thanks for spotting this. --Pi zero (talk) 12:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Natural options for hypertension are a h...
This article is not news, but is rather written like an opinion piece or probably an advertising. The article could possibly also qualify for speedy deletion. --Soccer-holic (talk) 10:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)).

Votes
Please vote using, , , or followed by signature