Wikinews:Deletion requests/Archives/2019

=Deletion requests=

July 8, 2019
Speedied, as "Empty category" is a standard reason for speedy-deletion; with a certain reassurance in community support here. --Pi zero (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Category:Politics of California and Category:Politics of the United States
Both are unused categories and don't seem to serve any apparent purpose. DPL should be able to serve the purpose of finding articles both in Category:Politics and conflicts and CAT:California/CAT:United States. —mikemoral (talk &middot; contribs) 06:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Votes

 * Can easily be recreated if need arises. --SVTCobra 05:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Category:Chili Finger Incident
This article is in category-space. The text appears to already be at the Chili Finger Incident. We can keep the category perhaps, but delete the article text, though "Chili finger incident" doesn't feel right as a category name. Category:Wendy's already exists for the fast food joint, so we could just keep all these related articles there. —mikemoral (talk &middot; contribs) 21:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments

 * The difference of date &mdash;March 24 versus March 22&mdash; was brought about by, with the explanation "march 24, 2005 was tuesday, not thursday". Afaict this is true, but the event took place on March 22 so it's the day of the week that's wrong (I'll put a correction on the mainspace article).  At the time of this edit, 8 June 2009, the mainspace article had been fully protected for about three and a half years. --Pi zero (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm missing the point of why should a category be left, if we can categorize only one article with it. --StanProg (talk) 00:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There are actually (and quite amazingly) fifteen articles about the topic. --SVTCobra 00:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Then the category should definitely remain and all these articles categorized with it. --StanProg (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd be in favor of renaming and recategorizing the articles, at so the category name is more in line with other categories. Mainly, though, "Chili Finger Incident" could be renamed something like "Wendy's 'chili finger' incident" or something. —mikemoral (talk &middot; contribs) 01:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. The capitalization is also not in line with how we do things. --SVTCobra 01:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The problem of this seems to have occurred in this edit where appears to have used subst:Chili Finger Incident with the article of same title in the category. This is evidenced by the previous edit where that effort failed with the stated intent of getting rid of the category. I am not sure why, but that's how all the text ended up in a category. --SVTCobra 01:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Votes

 * It's practically identical to the main namespace one. the text and use it as regular category. --StanProg (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The text can be provided the category remains; I'm okay with it provided we don't create a memory hole.  Keeping in mind the similarity to the mainspace article, I'm taking the position that the category text is not a published article since it's not in mainspace despite the tag. --Pi zero (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * text and restore into a normal topic cat. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Category:Conrad Burns
The subject of the category, Conrad Burns, died in 2016. There is only 1 article in the category, and it is unlikely that further articles will be added. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC).

Votes

 * There's a moral here. There turned out to be a bunch of other articles about Conrad Burns, that just hadn't been put into the category.  How could that have happened?  Simple, really: the category predates our (current) template w.  Now, when we create a new category we also create mainspace redirects, because we know those redirects will cause w to direct wikilinks to the new category instead of sending them off to Wikipedia; and then, when we create a new article, we remember to categorize it because the w template reminds us of the existing local targets for keywords in the article.  In the Bad Old Days, it was usually prohibitively too much work to check manually for local targets; and one of the several negative consequences was "lost" categories like this, created and then not further populated. And, silly me, I was struggling to write up a good case for keeping this old category even though it only had one article in it, and I should have remembered that this sometimes happens.  Well, anyway, there are in fact plenty of articles in the category now. --Pi zero (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks. I've withdrawn this and will be sure to try to populate such categories instead of trying to have them deleted. --DannyS712 (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

File:1245658349.ogv
This media has no source information, no permission information, and no licensing information. It is not used in any article. All I know is, it was an automatic upload of fair-use media from the wikinewsie.org shared dropbox. I do not know who contributed it to the dropbox, but i believe only accredited reporters have access. --SVTCobra 01:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Votes

 * unused material, likely under copyright. —mikemoral (talk &middot; contribs) 11:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

August 29, 2019
Deleted. --Pi zero (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Morwell v Sale 1986 LVFL Grand Final.ogv
An obviously copyrighted television broadcast of the 1986 VFL Grand Final. The file was uploaded claiming to be a screenshot under fair use. It is used only in a user-space story preparation which appears to have stalled years ago. --SVTCobra 02:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Votes

 * per nom --DannyS712 (talk) 06:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's essentially unused fair use media. —mikemoral (talk &middot; contribs) 11:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * —RockerballAustralia contribs 11:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems straightforward, and I see we've got the uploader on board. --Pi zero (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

September 10, 2019
Deleted. --Pi zero (talk) 01:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Empty wikinewsie categories for inactive users

 * Category:Amsiadat (Wikinewsie)
 * Category:Crgolden (Wikinewsie)
 * Category:Darkmightyaj (Wikinewsie)
 * Category:Mmariesmith4 (Wikinewsie)
 * Category:Rccovingto (Wikinewsie)
 * Category:Sglammela (Wikinewsie)
 * Category:Tapekia (Wikinewsie)

Empty categories, users are globally inactive, no articles written, last edit anywhere was in 2015. (for Tapekia, only 1 edit globally, in 2010) Can be recreated if the users returns. --DannyS712 (talk) 09:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Votes

 * per nom. —mikemoral (talk &middot; contribs) 11:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. --Pi zero (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * per nom. --SVTCobra 12:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

October 25, 2019
''Speedied, as advertising/spam. It's been common modernly for these spambots to surround their spam with unrelated and often nonsensical camouflage.'' --Pi zero (talk) 12:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

User:LatanyaEdmondson
It kind of looks like spam or nonsense; I am not expierienced with Wikinews. Josephine W. (talk) 07:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

October 31, 2019
Gone, through the abandonment process. --Pi zero (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Trump story
Obvious Point of View piece and is likely just vandalism. Lacks any type of content and uses a single partisan source. --AZOperator (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC).

Comments

 * Methinks there's no harm nor ill-intent in it. It's a page created by Baozon90, who has been gently exploring our project in recent times.  That particular exploration has not borne fruit, as you note, but there's no need for a formal deletion process; the normal process of four-or-more days' inactivity followed by two-or-more days' notice of abandonment will suffice. --Pi zero (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Togo/Infobox
Not an article, infobox already exists at Togo. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Votes

 * as redundant. -Green Giant (talk) 07:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Speedied as advertising/spam --Pi zero (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Trailer released for new Exorcist movie
Article that was never officially reviewed / published; 1 edit by an IP created it as Special:Permalink/1345728, featuring publish and archive, but I can find no evidence that it was actually reviewed by anyone. The only "source" given is a link to facebook that returns "Sorry, this content isn't available right now", and the official trailer linked returns "Video unavailable". --DannyS712 (talk) 05:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

2010 South Australian election template and category
Unused template, Wikinews doesn't appear to have covered the election. The category only includes the template. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Template:2010 South Australian election
 * Category:South Australian state election, 2010

Votes

 * as very unlikely to be needed now. -Green Giant (talk) 07:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Elections and politics of Liberia
Wikinews has no coverage of elections in Liberia, so the category is empty. The politics category only includes the elections category. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Category:Elections in Liberia
 * Category:Politics of Liberia

Votes
- They may be needed sooner than later, as you never know when politicians will fail at their jobs. But if they are empty now, they can be created later. Seemplez 09:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Category:Ofreporter
Redundant to Special:PrefixIndex/User:Ofreporter --DannyS712 (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Category:Discott (Wikinewsie)
Empty category, user hasn't edited here since 2013. --DannyS712 (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Votes
=Undeletion requests=

March 12, 2019

 * Two for undeleting; four varyingly objecting. Not done. --Pi zero (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Darkfrog24/Downturn
I request un-deletion of the essay at User:Darkfrog24/Downturn. It is a good-faith proposal for a conflict resolution technique that I think could have helped us over the past week or so and may help us wind down future conflicts. It does not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. It was marked as a work in progress, still in my userspace, and I did not request that it be deleted. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Votes and comments

 * Un-delete as author and proposer.  I think the person who deleted it might have been in unusual headspace for them at the time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * enwn is not a democracy, but I would still request not to consider the suggestion of Darkfrog24 which were made prior to 06:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC) as all the arguments are nothing but personal attacks in disguise. 2401:4900:2501:1E9:8412:7650:401E:B38C (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not true. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What is not true? 27.59.112.162 (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Leave as-is as deleting admin. From my perspective:
 * Darkfrog24 wrote a page set up to look like recommended advice for newcomers, telling them we're here to write synthesis, Wikipedia-style debates are often a fun thing to do on Wikinews, and if they decided they don't like how a discussion is going they can announce that everyone else has to play a childish game with them in conducting the discussion thereafter. It would have deserved to be deleted as either patent nonsense or trolling, or maybe vandalism, from the start, but instead I chose to treat it more seriously than it deserved, availed myself of an invitation to the community to trim, and explained what I was doing, step by step.  This is a point on which I'm pretty certain Darkfrog24 objects to my account (not that they won't object to other parts of it too), as I didn't write detailed edit descriptions.  I did point out, carefully, that I was specifically, separately objecting to what the first sentence said, what the second sentence said, and what the third sentence proposed (with attendant details thereafter).  If asked, I hope I would have, reluctantly, elaborated on what was wrong with each; but that's not the path events took.  Darkfrog24 reverted my edits with a trolling remark; I took it as increased support for interpretation of the page as an act of trolling, and deleted it as such. A bit of wider perspective, which I dislike going into but see no way to avoid at this point.  The project has been effectively shut down for roughly a couple of weeks as we've been trying to cope with Darkfrog24's attitude toward wikinewsies and toward the project infrastructure; the word I'd honestly have to use for it is contempt, by which I refer not to any hot emotion but to absence of respect.  We've spent circa a couple of years trying to explain to them how to interact constructively with other Wikinewsies; each attempted explanation has engendered misinterpretation; the attempts have been singularly unrewarding for us, so they've gotten less frequent, and there appears to be some synergy one way or the other (or both) between misapprehensions and disrespect.  Within the past half day or so, Darkfrog24 appears to have at last successfully (hard to say if that's the right word) driven off a registered user who has for some time been gamely trying to help them understand the project better and try to settle into a stable, productive role here.  They created another "essay" page still visible in which they advocate other people misusing the project in the ways they've been doing (the status of which is fraught); and then they created the page under discussion here, which is currently deleted. --Pi zero (talk) 05:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is so tempting to rebut every last point, but to keep things short and on-issue, Pi zero has not mentioned anything listed our speedy deletion policy (policy, not guideline). So it was not eligible for speedy deletion.
 * Well ...just one rebuttal. My objection is not that you didn't write detailed summaries for your edits.  My objection is that all you did was say "this is nonsense" and blank the whole essay.  Maybe it was late and you were tired.  Maybe you were about to self-revert but I got there first.  Who knows?  Just put it back and we can get to forgetting it ever happened. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Darkfrog24, the essays you write on-wiki: it is abusing the wiki for your personal web host which should not be entertained. 2401:4900:2501:1E9:8412:7650:401E:B38C (talk) 06:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I wrote two essays, one at another Wikinewsie's request. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hm, the IP raises a pretty credible point actually, re web-hosting.
 * As noted before, I didn't blank the whole essay, which sounds like a unitary action; I separately removed three different things (that did, yes, add up to the whole content).
 * The wording of the standard menu of speedy-deletion reasons does not correspond one-for-one with the list on the policy page. Generally it's possible to translate the one language to the other if one had to; and then of course there's common practice which stirs into the mix.  Truthfully I don't think that technicality will fly. --Pi zero (talk) 07:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Your reasons don't match the regular deletion page or the speedy deletion page. For common practice, we've only dealt with one essay in the past six years, and it had been abandoned for six months before it was deleted.
 * It looks like the practice in such cases is to move the essay to the writer's userspace, which is where I already had it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I do not see a good reason to undelete that page. A 'downturn' as a practice is difficult to enforce. Just use short replies yourself when you need them. I do not oppose the creation of a page about usefullness of short replies elsewhere, such as at Meta, if they allow it; seems like a thing that, if successful, could apply to several projects. --Gryllida (talk) 06:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well that's why it was marked as a worked in progress. I figured we could try it a few times and see how it worked.
 * I offer a reason: Pi zero characterized the essay as trolling, and it is not. I am concerned that my actions are being misrepresented.  Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikinews is not your personal web hosting service. Move it your machine. 27.59.112.162 (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Anon27, I believe it is important for you to say "I am the same person as the previous anon" or "I am a different person from the previous anon." It's a voting situation, so matters how many people we have.  I don't know how or whether to list you, so I'll leave it to you.
 * Wikinews hosts lots of essays by Wikinewsies meant to supplement our guidelines and policies. Pi zero wrote Attribution and Gryllida is writing Welcome Bit for Helpers.  Neither is using Wikinews for web hosting inappropriately, and neither am I.  All three essays are meant to help Wikinewsies, so they are here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not vote, so it does not matter. What matters is what is being said.  You have not accumulated enough reputation to write any policy, guideline or essay for enwn. 27.59.114.127 (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It is reasonable to request a temporary undeletion of a user space page so the author may save a copy of their work. Policy is writing down what is the current practice after discussion. When WN:CSD was initially c/p from en.WP I suggested attack pages should be included, because it was then and continues to be the practice the practice that attack pages are deleted on sight. (I understand this page could also be under WN:NOT, WN:POINT, probably others.) However, Wikilawyering is never acceptable, and this entire section is an attempt to do exactly that. -  Amgine | t 15:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I would just like it un-deleted so people can see how harmless and useful it is, but barring that, yes, temp un-delete so I can move it to Meta or something. Maybe another Wikiproject can use it if the crowd here on Wikinews doesn't want to.  And I promise you I'm not attempting Wikilawyering.  I just thought if we could agree this was against the letter of policy, there would be no get into the more subjective side, which seems to be a bit of a minefield these days. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Restore - It is unconscionable in my opinion to deny a user to formulate a proposed policy within their own user space without proper cause. We, as the Wiki community are supposed think "outside the box" and come up with solutions to problems. We are supposed to find ways to make the software work better or write scripts to help it along the way. We are supposed to write our own policies for interacting together. Through the course of human history, dreams such as these do not just happen if they ever even occur.
 * It is firmly entrenched in the Wikimedia Universe that users are free to think for themselves and use sandboxes and user pages to work on projects including policy or suggested guidance. Unless there is a severely bigoted or malicious personal attack in the user's subpage, I do not see any way it should have deleted. The manner with which it was deleted as Speedy #3 with the added insult of a "trolling" tag seems capricious and unfair.
 * Whether the proposed policy (which was only in a project stage on a user page) was useful, practical, workable, or had any chance of being accepted is completely irrelevant. And not SPAM (I forgot).
 * In addition to my vote to restore, I encourage the deleting Admin to do it speedily so we can close this without wasting anymore time. Cheers, --SVTCobra 04:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree with SVTCobra. This is not ones personal web host to get away with anything.  One can't just write policies or essays on enwn, especially not the one who is utterly clueless about the basic things about the project.  And if SVTCobra is so concerned about quickly ending this, copy the content of those deleted pages, and email it to the author instead of letting such things stay on-wiki. •–•  05:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If restored, I would oppose marking the essay with Wikinews essay. This template says 'The contents are strongly recommended practices'. This in my opinion does not apply to the contents of these essays. Gryllida (talk) 09:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have created a new template, Wikinews user essay. I believe it addresses this concern. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Some observations.
 * Nobody has called it spam. I deleted it as trolling, and would also have considered a couple of other items on the standard menu as reasonable descriptions, but there was no claim of spam.  (And I spent a huge pile of time and effort carefully composing a coherent explanation of exactly what I did and why, and then the whole discussion was corrupted by multiple (evidently well-meaning) rearrangements with the net effect that my expensive clear explanation that was originally presented in a coherent sequence in the discussion has now been shunted out of the main stream.)
 * Our userspace is not immune to basic reasons for deletion. We've got spambots nowadays creating, over time, huge numbers of advertising/spam user pages.  We've even had deletions of user pages as patent nonsense, which surprised me when I first saw a user page that warranted it (but I did know it when I saw it).  And web-hosting, which someone pointed out here is also a reasonable objection under the current circumstances, is likely to be in userspace.
 * Trolling routinely says objectionable things; the fact that they're objectionable is both relevant to understanding their trollitude, and, at the same time, does not alone make it trolling. There's an attitude, a deliberate provocation thing going on, and each case is likely to have some of its own one-off flavor to it.  (There is, btw, more than one place the drive for this sort of thing can come from; not all trolls fit the generic stereotype.)
 * It looks like, for what ever reason, Darkfrog24's disruption may succeed in effectively shutting down the project for yet another day. I repeat: trolling.
 * This incredibly disruptive discussion could be immediately ended by the requester withdrawing the requests. I'd be very pleasantly surprised if they do so; I invite them to demonstrate positive intent by doing so.  It would have far-reaching beneficial effects.
 * --Pi zero (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * There were a bunch of votes here, which clearly indicated a strong consensus trend to leave it deleted. There were also lot comments here.  Somebody rearranged the whole DR to put the comments in a separate section, leaving only a summary of votes here, and then someone else (I'm pretty sure this one was SVTCobra who simply wasn't aware of the earlier rearrangement)  deleted the vote summary.  That leaves us with a hugely compromised deletion request.  This whole thing started with a "vote" (we all know there are no votes, right?) by me explaining in detail exactly why I took the actions I did, in the order I did, and others giving coherent explanations of their positions. --Pi zero (talk) 11:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * An uncannily consistent occurrence around Darkfrog24's advocacies is that anyone who doesn't agree with them is forced not just to explain themselves (which tends to happen even if the burden of argument clearly should be on Darkfrog24), but to do so over and over, in ever-widening arcs (as more and more misunderstandings accumulate). The destruction of the coherent record of this request is an example; this discussion started out by developing into a surprisingly coherent presentation of who did what, in what order, and why, and what others thought about that.  There was a clear, strong consensus trend in opposition to the request, and then the section was repeatedly rearranged and the coherent record was thoroughly wiped out.  The reason I mention that the trend before this corruption was in opposition to the request, is that the net effect of the corruption is therefore strongly prejudicial in favor of the request.  So that any positive outcome to the request probably cannot be considered legitimate unless it involves actually persuading the original opposers to change their positions (or, of course, convincing the deleting admin to change their position). --Pi zero (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've tried to repair the inadvertent damage to the record by explicitly acknowledging that the earlier material is all within the scope of !voting. --Pi zero (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

1)I think this is too early to close these requests. 2)I request temporary unblock so I can move this harmless brainstorming to Meta. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Seven days after the later of the two requests. The discussion was brisk.  2) I'll arrange a temporary undelete for you. --Pi zero (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

March 13, 2019

 * Realistically, neither logically nor adminstratively separable from the preceding request; positions substantially subset of the preceding with no new features, though some people didn't repeat their positions from the earlier section. Not done. --Pi zero (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Darkfrog24/Slowdown
I wrote a conflict resolution essay incorporating criticism from the previous one and comments on the conflicts we've had over the past few weeks. It was in my userspace. It was clearly marked as a work in progress and as the views of one person and not the entire community. It did not meet any of the criteria in either our speedy deletion policy or regular deletion policy. It was deleted without discussion, warning, or filing here on this page. I request that it be restored.

I'm also alarmed that the change description was so very misleading. I feel the word "trolling" greatly mischaracterizes the content of and improperly speculates about the intent behind my work. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments
It's my understanding that common practice for problematic essays, which these essays were not, is to move them to the writer's userspace. That's where I had it to begin with. No action was necessary. I feel that so long as the essay is clearly and unambiguously marked as my own personal idea, there is no problem with my doing some brainstorming the way so many of our colleagues do: Essay OR Essay Welcome Helpers The essay SLOWDOWN is evidence that I can take and incorporate constructive criticism, even when it is given in a way that strikes me as hostile. I've been told to brush off my feelings and move on, to disregard who said something and how and focus on what, and that's what this essay is. I'd like it back for that reason too. A few times over the past few weeks, another Wikinewsie asked me to write personal essays about the way Wikinews does and should work for my benefit and that of others. I didn't think it would do any good, but I tried it anyway and it turns out it is helpful. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Trolling is exactly what it was. I'm not going to play the game of sifting through the rest of the above misrepresentations. --Pi zero (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow! You are clearly clueless about this one.  You wrote something that was in your user space.  And that user space is on enwn.  Your user space is not on your machine or your own server.  Wikinews is not a blog hosting platform where you do whatever you want.  You need to accumulate reputation for doing certain things.  You can not, and should not write essays for the project unless you thoroughly understand the policies.  It is like attempting to prove P = NP without having any clue what NP means.  I do not see why do you have a problem drafting the essay on your own machine?  Stop using enwn as your personal web host.  I think you don't really know what trolling means, else, if had read what you had written, you would have known. 27.59.39.141 (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 27.59.39.14 is clearly speaking out-of-order and with complete disregard for policies and decorum. I do not think we should allow this to continue in this comment section. Do not make me act unilaterally on this. This is an official page and not some random talk page of a user or article. --SVTCobra 03:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Votes

 * Un-delete' as author and proposer. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Restore - It is unconscionable in my opinion to deny a user to formulate a proposed policy within their own user space without proper cause. We, as the Wiki community are supposed think "outside the box" and come up with solutions to problems. We are supposed to find ways to make the software work better or write scripts to help it along the way. We are supposed to write our own policies for interacting together. Through the course of human history, dreams such as these do not just happen if they ever even occur.
 * It is firmly entrenched in the Wikimedia Universe that users are free to think for themselves and use sandboxes and user pages to work on projects including policy or suggested guidance. Unless there is a severely bigoted or malicious personal attack in the user's subpage, I do not see any way it should have deleted. The manner with which it was deleted as Speedy #3 with the added insult of a "trolling" tag seems capricious and unfair.
 * Whether the proposed policy (which was only in a project stage on a user page) was useful, practical, workable, or had any chance of being accepted is completely irrelevant. And not SPAM (I forgot).
 * In addition to my vote to restore, I encourage the deleting Admin to do it speedily so we can close this without wasting anymore time. Cheers, --SVTCobra 04:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree with SVTCobra. This is not ones personal web host to get away with anything.  One can't just write policies or essays on enwn, especially not the one who is utterly clueless about the basic things about the project.  And if SVTCobra is so concerned about quickly ending this, copy the content of those deleted pages, and email it to the author instead of letting such things stay on-wiki. •–•  05:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The "Votes" section is not really for debate, but has been used before, so I will address this nonsense here: It is not just anything. It is not a list of favorite songs. It is not a shopping list. It is not a suggestion to "Subscribe to ". It is an idea for this project! As such it has every right to be in the user's sub-page just as much as your dashboard ideas deserve to be on your page. So, kindly vote and/or comment above and stop trying to interfere with my vote, --SVTCobra 05:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, read the comment again. Except for the last line, everything I say is in support of not restoring the page.  Vote section does have disagreements with someone's rationale, followed by the reason you support your stance, or showing why someone's reasoning is not good.  And might as well offer some alternatives.  If you still could not figure out, it was strong opposition to speedy restore, and opposition to restoring it in general. •–•  06:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I know you are not in support of restoring the page. And I asked you to not interfere with my vote. You are not going to change my mind on this. You could put a gun to my head and I'd agree with you, but I'd only be lying out of fear. So, let me reiterate, you are not going to change my mind unless you put mortal fear in my mind. Why haven't you voted yet? Actually, better yet, explain the devastating harm this page would have on Wikinews in your vote. --SVTCobra 06:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * This request is another mess. I would say I'm obviously opposed to restoring this trollage, but I'm not convinced there can be any validity to the whole... okay, it's not a DR; UDR? And this is feels like some kind of double jeopardy following on top of the preceding request that has been horribly compromised by an intended interaction of two (or more?) users rearranging its section in a way that erased all the votes from an emerging consensus opposing the request. --Pi zero (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

de:Wikinews:Löschkandidaten es:Wikinoticias:Solicitudes de borrado fa:ویکی‌خبر:درخواست حذف fr:Wikinews:Demandes de suppression it:Wikinotizie:Richieste di cancellazione ja:ウィキニュース:削除依頼 pl:Wikinews:Strony do usunięcia ru:Викиновости:К удалению zh:Wikinews:删除请求