Wikinews:Deletion requests/Archives/2018

=Deletion requests=

Portal:Alaska/Wikipedia
This nomination was turned down as failed. --•–• 05:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC) These articles were proposed for speedy deletion by Dreamy Jazz but the pages are ineligible for speedy deletion. As such, I'm listing them here on their behalf. Microchip08 (talk) 10:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Portal:Alaska/Wikipedia
 * Portal:Alabama/Wikipedia
 * The rationale for deletion is that these two pages are only used for importing news to the Alaska and Alabama portals respectively. These portals no longer use the news imported from here. Thus the pages that the news is imported to has been deleted (see w:Portal:Alaska/Wikinews and w:Portal:Alabama/Wikinews). Because both portals do not use and won't use news from WikiNews for the foreseeable future, the associated pages listed for deletion here that are only used to import news to the deleted pages, are no longer needed. So, these two pages can (and should be to save confusion) be deleted. Dreamy Jazz (talk) 10:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Votes

 * Per my rationale. Dreamy Jazz (talk) 11:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Aside from the points in the nomination, I believe WN has opted for just Categories rather than portals. --SVTCobra 14:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This nomination isn't about a portal. It's about a page on Wikinews that allows a bot to export a Wikinews DPL to Wikipedia. --Pi zero (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, but User:Wikinews Importer Bot has been deactivated. So, is it useful or not? --SVTCobra 19:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The functions of that bot were taken over by another bot, according to the bot's en.wp user page. So, apparently, deactivation of that particular bot doesn't tell us anything about whether the page is useful. --Pi zero (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll abstain. Vote stricken. --SVTCobra 19:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * As I understand this nomination, any infrastructure not presently being used must automatically and without question be deleted. What nonsense. I note this to be sufficiently wrong-headed that the nominator does not, in fact, know the name of the project they are trying to remove pages from. BRS  (Talk)   (Contribs) 04:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Turning down the request: There is no advantage in deleting a pages. While there has been, and might be advantages keeping it, to export news to other projects. •–• 05:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

June 1, 2018

 * Delete BRS  (Talk)   (Contribs) 04:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Navassa Island
I propose that we delete this redundant portal for a small uninhabited island. There may be some newsworthy current events at some point, but I doubt we are going to be needing a Category:Navassa Island anytime soon. Green Giant (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments
Yes, the category is sufficient, no need for a portal. Harsh Rathod Poke me!  11:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Votes

 * Redundant at this point of time. Harsh Rathod  Poke me!  11:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Aside from the points in the nomination, I believe WN has opted for just Categories rather than portals. --SVTCobra 14:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Since it is small, there are no articles in the group? and nobody lives on it, I think this should probably be removed.Qwerty number1 (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Portal:Lehighton (and associated redirect:Lehighton)
I propose to delete this redundant portal (notwithstanding that portals have become obsolete) for a of 5,500 people. I might be wrong (and indeed there may be some newsworthy current events from there), but I doubt we are going to be needing a Category:Lehighton anytime soon. --Green Giant (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Votes

 * Although ancient, it was prematurely created by a user in their only edit on any of the Wiki projects. --SVTCobra 17:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup. No mention of Lehighton on the project besides the two nominated pages.  --Pi zero (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Certainly not necessary at this time. -- numbermaniac  04:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * as per nominator. The portal is of no use currently. Harsh Rathod  Poke me!  04:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Files uploaded by for use in US: Judge enters 'not guilty' for Florida school shooting suspect, audio/video forced release with FBI timeline

 * File:Nikolas Cruz campus movements.png
 * File:Suspect Movement in Building 12.png

It is my opinion, these images do not qualify for a fair use exception with regards to reusing copyrighted images. The uploader has stated they were found on Commons, however, if they were there, I cannot locate them now. The aspect of the story they are used to illustrate is by no means 'breaking news' furthermore it would be easy to create free versions by anyone with a graphics program, a free satellite photo, and a few hours of spare time.

As best as I can determine, the images are the work of the Sun-Sentinel as seen in this article.

Thank you for your time, --SVTCobra 19:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments
Hello SVTCobra. "a few hours of spare time" is a wonderful description of one of the resources that journalistic work requires. :-) Concur that the images may be reproduced by hand to convey the same information (or even more) in a free way. --Gryllida (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Votes

 * as argued. Article works well without these images and shouldn't contain non-free images. --Gwyndon (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * per my own nomination. --SVTCobra 14:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * per nomination and because the article has been deleted. Green Giant (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * as per nominator. The article does not exist. Harsh Rathod  Poke me!  04:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Files uploaded by claiming "fair use" listed below

 * File:Malik flash quotes.png
 * File:Athletics - Women's Shot Put - F53 Final - Start List.pdf
 * File:Karamjyoti vs. UOI (1).pdf
 * File:Profile on Paralympic Site.png
 * File:Results online for Malik.png

All of these files are only used on Talk:Wikinews interviews India's first female Paralympic medalist Deepa Malik serving what purpose I can only speculate as "notes".

None of them have any sort of fair-use rationale. Furthermore, I cannot even imagine justifying this. They appear to be screenshots (mostly) of web pages. Those pages should have been listed in the sources and not screenshotted in lieu of proper OR notes.

These are all high-resolution images, which serve no newsworthy purpose, and in my opinion should be deleted posthaste. Cheers, --SVTCobra 22:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments

 * Regarding 's comment in his vote, might I suggest we store any of the ones needed for OR notes wherever we store things that get submitted to @scoop? Cheers, --SVTCobra 03:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Afaik scoop data is only stored in scoop inbox (which also means all accredited reporters inboxes also). There is a journalists private wiki where the data could also be stored but i do not remember being asked to do this. Of course people could do that by their own initiative if they wanted. Gryllida (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, scoop isn't archived. I had some old OR stuff archived on a laptop that died a few years ago, so that's gone too.  Stuff happens. Are deleted files kept in the wiki database indefinitely?  --Pi zero (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I just tried to restore a couple of files that were deleted in 2005 and got the following message: Internal error: [WrXAFwpAMFYAAGassj4AAAAG] 2018-03-24 03:03:51: Fatal exception of type "LogicException" So I guess not. --SVTCobra 03:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting. (That pinged me, btw.)  --Pi zero (talk) 03:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Deleted Wikimedia files have only been restorable from June 2006 onwards. That's probably why you wouldn't be able to restore older ones. See this announcement for more details. Green Giant (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Can we move on this? It is over a year old! --SVTCobra 01:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Seriously. Can this be closed? I do not see a problem or disagreement in the votes. --SVTCobra 02:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Votes

 * Delete: These probably are violating copyright, but we should however transcribe any relevant information to the talk page as reporting notes. —mikemoral (talk &middot; contribs) 09:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: Supporting Mikemoral in preserving the contents but deleting the screenshots. --Gwyndon (talk) 02:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Per SVTCobra. —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔ ) 02:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * but store off-wiki. --SVTCobra 14:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 *  Arep Ticous  talkcontribs 18:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

January 8, 2018

 * Recreated using only Wikinews' existing templates. No clear consensus, otherwise. --SVTCobra 20:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:Cover
Honestly, it qualifies for a speedy deletion since it violates the licensing. It has been copied from Wikipedia, and the text is licensed under BY-SA and it is not compatible with that of Wikinews. (And for the part where SVTCobra, who clearly has CoI for being the creator, and falsely assuming they know about the licensing; see Template talk:Cover for the discussion, they say Wikipedia templates are used on other projects — they have compatible licenses.

From Creative Commons, “CC BY is one-way compatible with BY-SA. You may adapt a BY work and apply BY-SA to your contributions, but you may not adapt a BY-SA work and apply BY to your contributions.” Wikinews can not copy text from Wikipedia licensed under BY-SA. 223.237.221.162 (talk) 05:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Source — w:Template:Non-free newspaper image. 223.237.221.162 (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments
To illustrate my point of the licenses just applying to non-text (actual mainspace content) I give you these links: Reusing Wikipedia content and Importing and exporting text from Wikimedia projects. Notice how the focus is on the text as in the actual information in articles, be they news or encyclopedic. And when the $%#@ has one Wiki project sued as sister project over copyright? Never! Because we are one legal entity! This template is a non-content template. It is not out there in things we publish. This is simply a silly DR and if it goes through, it will set a bad precedent that will make it harder for Wikinews to keep up with the world. We are already way behind our sister projects, why are we actively trying to set ourselves back even further? Well, that's my two cents. Thank you very much if you read it all. Cheers, --SVTCobra 14:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ("Nobody understands copyright!" &mdash; meant to be spoken in the style of of 's "Nobody expects the !") Wikinewsies I've read and discussed this with over the years have agreed &mdash;not quite unanimously, the immediate circumstances demonstrate&mdash; that the licensing incompatibility between Wikipedia and Wikinews applies to templates, javascript, etc., not just to mainspace articles. In at least one case, I recall BRS  re some such code-ish material by suggesting it was too trivial to copyright (I think xe prefaced that with an acknowledgement that xyr opinion differed from others'). That said, I see no need for this template to differ at all from the admirably simple one it started out to generalize, TIME Person of the Year.  If we simply move that template over this one, wiping out the version copied from Wikipedia and providing a suitable cover template at the same time, that ought to satisfy the generalized need without the controversy.  --Pi zero (talk) 12:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest people read Template_talk:Cover as well as the nomination and comments before voting. While I agree that Pi zero's sentiment and vote is an easy workaround, I do believe there is a principle at stake here. Even though, I may have gotten the portablity of licenses backwards in the talk page, I am a firm believer that non-mainspace content, meaning everything other than the text of articles, is not subject to those restrictions. All of that, whether it is java script, python code, a template, or a policy, is fully the property of the Wikimedia Foundation and thus, as a subset of that, free to copy, use, or augment as we see fit here on Wikinews. Blood Red Sandman (BRS as I guess you know him), is a person I respect, but I disagree with BRS on this point. There are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of templates copied from Wikipedia or another sister project currently on Wikinews. Just think of all the little ones, like User Commons or done. These are, just like Cover not in the mainspace, and that is why we can import and use them. If background things like code and scripts can't be used, how do global bots exist?
 * WMF does not hold the copyright on those pages; the users who wrote it do, and any use of it by the WMF is subject to permission of the authors, under the terms of the copyright (which I believe are entirely uniform between different namespaces on any given sister project). BRS &mdash; whose, er, family background re legal subjects is pretty daunting, really &mdash; is not by any means the only highly informed user I've interacted with on this subject, just one I thought of in regards to the cutting-the-Gordian-knot technique, which applies here as a tactic.  Regarding the number of templates that may have been copied, two wrongs don't make a right and we've tried very hard to avoid adding to that list over the years.  More practically, though, in this particular case I don't think Wikipedia's more detailed template is desirable; they have a very bureaucratic infrastructure, whereas we tend to minimize repeating stuff, and seems to me preferring the more minimalist style of TIME Person of the Year makes sense for Wikinews.  --Pi zero (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Some things to note: many projects have compatible license with that of the one used by Wikipedia. Done would be too trivial to copy because the only text in that template is “done”. And just because someone hasn’t sued you doesn’t mean you can do it. Consider an old photographer. If he dies, you cannot just upload their unpublished work on Commons the next day of death. They would not be able to sue you, but you cannot. “Firm believer” — find where is it written that templates are excluded from the licensing. Now that reason is not good enough to do wrong things. Moreover, it is not that subset of Wikimedia can be freely used by Wikinews. For example, Wikimedia owns Wikipedia and pedia’s text is Wikimedia’s property but we cannot use it. Your belief should have stronger base and lesser ambiguity for others even except the proposal. Lagging behind other projects is not a good reason to break copyright issues, twelve years’ experience would have taught you that. A good way of being on the same level as other projects is to make home grown templates — but then, instead of encouraging that, we are struck here. (Reminds me, how I could think of fixing translated quote; it might have never been accepted if there was an alternative we knew of. 223.237.232.104 (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: per w:WP:OWN, nobody owns a page (including articles, user space page, templates …), but according to w:WP:C, authors are to be attributed. It is: you wrote the thing, and you will be recognised as the author, but not the owner of the article. •–• 16:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You are joking, right? When did you see anyone who used a Wikipedia article and attributed the thousands of people that contributed? It's not even feasible. The attribution will never go any further than Wikipedia. You will never get recognition as an author. --SVTCobra 16:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's been my understanding (though this seems to be drifting a little off the main question... maybe) that WP:OWN is not about legal ownership but about the principle that no author of a page has any special right to prevent others from editing the page.
 * Presumably that's why one of the things one agrees to, in contributing to a wiki page, is that attribution will be to the project. It's considered vital to preserve the list of contributors to a page in its edit history, though; at Wikibooks we delete material that's copy-and-pasted from Wikipedia for just this reason, that the material must not be separated from the list of authors in its revision history; it needs to be imported with its edit history.  --Pi zero (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, Naja, how about you stop acting as if you know everything (especially after realising 12 years of experience wasn’t enough to understand licensing) and actually read those project pages? In any case, the joke is on your beloved ‘pedia, if that is your reasoning (which evidently is no where near satisfactiory in general) 223.237.201.153 (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ... says the person who uploaded a high resolution copyrighted image and thought it could be called "fair use", yet professes to know all about "licenses" ... --SVTCobra 17:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Might be the same person; IP, after all.  best not to have dignified it with a response at all, imho.  --Pi zero (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * says the same person who didn’t realise I never said I know all about license, and did not see that Wikinews’s FU says nothing about low resolution photos. Let’s see “it is meant to inform readers about 2016's magazine cover, for the article Time magazine refutes Donald Trump's Twitter claim he was nominated 'Person of the Year'. The article discusses about this cover.” vs the biased, and full of assumption version (that too, stolen from Wikipedia) “To directly illustrate the nature of the 'Person of the Year' issue which is discussed the article. This greatly helps the reader understand and recognize the subject of the article.” “greatly” — how can you claim it is greatly or just slight better than having an article about some magazine that not everyone knows about. 223.237.201.153 (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Side note: my remark earlier that "Nobody understands copyright!" was an example of what the calls "ha ha, only serious".  --Pi zero (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not a side note: my solution allows this particular case to be resolved without predicating it on resolution of a template-copyright issue that has not been comfortably settled on Wikinews despite having been batted about for more than a decade. Of the three registered users who've been weighing in here, two have voted compatible with that solution, and the third referred to it in a comment as an "easy workaround".  Prospects for that solution (which is, after all, reversible) are looking pretty good atm, imo.  --Pi zero (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. I am here in response to a question asked at en.wiki. In regards to licensing, I will repeat what I said there: When you edit Wikinews, in the edit window for any text, templates, talk pages, and everything else, you agree to: 'Your work will be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License and will be attributed to "Wikinews"'. Templates on en.wiki are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 and any use of them must also be licensed under 3.0. However at the bottom of the every page at Wikinews (this page included) it says "Contributions must be attributed to Wikinews; see Terms of use for details." And that Wikimedia terms of use says "When you submit text to which you hold the copyright, you agree to license it under: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (“CC BY-SA”), and GNU Free Documentation License (“GFDL”) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)." So everything an editor enters on Wikinews is licensed both as 2.5 and 3.0. Using material from en.wiki poses no problem. However it must be attributed properly. See en:Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You are, unfortunately, incorrect. I edit Template:Cover and it says 2.5, not 3.  --Pi zero (talk)
 * (Just to be clear: being incorrect is unfortunate, on general principles, and I feel regret on behalf of anyone it happens to.   However, I don't mean to suggest anything unfortunate about all namespaces using the same license.  Imo it would be a terrible idea to put different namespaces of a single project under different licenses, and I distantly recall a community discussion rejecting such an arrangement for just this reason:  it would make it a copyright violation to move a page from a more restrictive namespace to a less restrictive one, which would be dreadfully accident-prone and confusing.)  --Pi zero (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have just found out I am very, VERY incorrect. The terms of use also state "The only exception is if the Project edition or feature requires a different license. In that case, you agree to license any text you contribute under that particular license. For example, at the publication of this version of the Terms of Use, English Wikinews mandates that all text content is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic License (CC BY 2.5) and does not require a dual license with GFDL." There is an exception for Wikinews. Therefore you cannot copy anything from en.wiki, not templates, not talk pages, not article content, since the editor here stipulates you are releasing under 2.5 whenever you edit. Text copyright for Foundation Projects seems to mean any text anywhere in the project. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ambox and its derivatives, which can be found on almost all main space articles violate the licensing, I guess that should be nominated too. 223.237.205.57 (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with BRS on that: basically, it's too trivial for copyright to apply. --Pi zero (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * you are missing the point here: the source code is [also] licensed under CC BY-SA, and the code is not too trivial to be copyrighted. 223.237.207.225 (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not missing the point. I'm talking about the code, and so (as I recall) was BRS.  --Pi zero (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That is fairly complex to qualify for ToO (see commons:com:TOO. That isn't just a simple table after all, there is some sort of decision making (though simple), but conditional statements are there -- and there are various simple scripts available under MIT license (compatible with either CC BY or CC BY-SA), asserting a certain rights could be reserved. 223.237.201.9 (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I recall (noting, it was some time ago by now) heavily researching the status of our box templates (ambox and such), at the time I set up xambox; in particular I recall combing through revision histories to determine exactly which revisions of Wikipedia templates were involved. So evidently the conclusions I came to were not based on merely casual consideration.  I admit I wouldn't relish the prospect of launching a massive research project over it again.  --Pi zero (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Before we go crazy and dismantle a whole template structure which could potentially destroy Wikinews, the fact is many, many templates are in fact adapted from Wikipedia, including outdent which I just used, as well as policy, we need to make some careful considerations about this. Over on Wikipedia, I asked a follow-up question about code, scripts, global bots and was referred to MediaWiki, which is were the wiki software and the wiki markup language comes from; the code in other words. MediaWiki releases its software under (GPL). GPL is so free that it is even allowed on Commons, which is a notorious stickler over copyright and licenses. In fact, GPL is one of their preferred licenses. Can it be argued that templates are largely code, written in wiki markup language, and thus fall under the auspices of GPL? I guess, what I am asking is: Are templates code or are they text? P.S. Speedy deletions are for obvious copyright violations of material from parties which might sue us. The template I created, is an adaptation, not a direct copy and therefore not in any way a blatant violation and poses no legal liability as far as any danger that Wikipedia is sudden going to sue Wikinews in court. Cheers, --SVTCobra 15:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Moved from my talkpage and modified: Templates are not content. Look at, and note that it discusses "article texts and illustrations", not templates or help pages or WikiProjects or Wikipedia (project space) pages. The only other arguable content would be Drafts because they are clearly intended as future articles. The only content in that sense then is the text and images used in articles; such things are affected clearly by copyright and are subject to the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license. Look at and note that it says:
 * Templates often make use of programming features—parameters, parser functions and other magic words—which allow the transcluded content to vary depending on context. There are also special tags to control which information is transcluded and which is not.
 * That is clearly referring to code i.e. using the software to create an effect. Can I copyright the boldness of the words "the subject" or is it just the actual words that are affected rather than the six   or indeed the nowiki tags I have just utilised? Yes, there are copyright fonts but that’s a different issue. A template could theoretically be subject to one or more patents but it is impossible unless the underlying software was patented, which we all know is not the case. Jimmy Wales, or Brion Vibber or whoever, lost that opportunity in 2003 or 2004 or whatever year it was, when they publicised the software without at least a patent-pending (I can’t remember clearly but they moved to a new setup). So in summary, it is not a copyright violation to re-use the code for the template. One could argue about the wording that is displayed but I think that is easily solved by changing it, although I don’t think there is a good reason to do so. SVTCobra is correct about sister projects but it goes deeper than that. Every Wikipedia user is first and foremost a Wikimedia user (demonstrated by the fact that once I login to WN, I can switch to WP right away without having to login again, annoying glitches aside). So every user who has edited the original template on Wikipedia is also a Wikinewsie (whether they wish it or not). It is patently absurd to pretend, for example, that User:Green Giant on Wikipedia is somehow legally a different person to User:Green Giant on Wikinews. Green Giant (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I offer three moderately-quick thoughts on this (keeping in mind that the first of these would probably be a viable topic for a doctoral dissertation).
 * The above leans heavily on secondary texts and the concept of "content". That's an extraordinary can of worms.  There are at least three aspects to this, all thoroughly entangled.  There's the purely legal aspect, where there's the matter of what is copyrightable which gets into things like human creative output versus mathematical formulae which are considered to be discovered rather than created (and algorithms float between), and human forces and common sense pitting themselves against inhuman corporate and other economic interests which are responsible for the (deeply problematic) phenomenon of software patents.  There's the ethical/moral aspect, which is both where the notion of plagiary comes in and where various purely legal and economically-driven factors start to break down.  And there's the wiki aspect, which is in most direct contact with the human element, where users put human creativity into wiki pages, regardless of namespace.
 * It is unworkable to treat content in template space differently from content in "content spaces". (Here we have only one "content" space &mdash; I think that term occurs somewhere in the wiki software, not that it has or should have any legal significance &mdash; while e.g. on English Wikibooks there are three content namespaces [mainspace, Wikijunior, and Cookbook].)  Templates exist primarily to generate text that appears in content spaces.
 * I would emphatically prefer the simple content now located at TIME Person of the Year to the complicated thing borrowed from Wikipeda, regardless of whether we're allowed to copy the template. The Wikipedian thing follows a picky bureaucratic style that we don't want to import here; simple, easily understood, and not attempting to repeat details that properly belong elsewhere is a much better style and in keeping with news writing principles.
 * --Pi zero (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Votes

 * I suggest we simply move TIME Person of the Year over cover, wiping out the Wikipedia-ish version. --Pi zero (talk) 12:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete or hide the revisions as soon as possible. Copyvio accounts for speedy. 223.237.201.153 (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

January 3, 2018

 * Deleted. --Pi zero (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

User:71.184.225.67/Thats not the worse thing i've ever said or done to a woman
Some sort of essay by an IP claiming to be the subject of some Wikinews article which I could not locate in the archives. It is six years old and beyond the scope of this project. --SVTCobra 18:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Votes

 * Delete - per my own nomination --SVTCobra 18:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete unsourced unvetted allegations by an IP; Wikinews is not a web host. --Pi zero (talk) 12:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)