Jump to content

Wikinews:Deletion requests/Archives/2008/Q4

Add links
From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!

This is the archive of Deletion Requests that were closed from October 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008.

December 9, 2008

[edit]

This request for deletion has been closed by TUFKAAP (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to Delete.


Template:Terrorism

[edit]

Unused template that was part of some concerted effort by former users to push on articles pertaining to terrorism to make it more "NPOV." Widely defeated by consenus in Water cooler. --TUFKAAP (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Votes

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


December 4, 2008

[edit]

This request for deletion has been closed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to Deleted as abandoned by Thunderhead (talk · contribs).


YouTube experiments with HD videos

[edit]

It's stale. --TUFKAAP (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]

Comments

[edit]

I really dislike having the technical details in this article about how to access higher resolution content. This has put me off reviewing this as it seems like something for Slashdot, not Wikinews. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi, it's not completele about "hot to get the hd version". there are infos about that youtube finally do progress in their service. even if it's more technical, news is news. If that is a reason for not reviewing it, why not telling me that before and I would have spent some more time to get mor news worty facts. and by the way, this is no reason, this can be done with sports or arts or else. I dont agree, that there are not spaces here for more tech news, or we could even say, that sport news should be done on a sport related website. greets, --Andreas -horn- Hornig (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


December 3, 2008

[edit]

This request for deletion has been closed by DragonFire1024 (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to keep.


Indian NE state of Nagaland now under President's rule.

[edit]

I came across this article while archiving. It clearly does not meet the standards for publishing; it was self published. It is missing the {{date}} template so it never showed up on the front page. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


December 1, 2008

[edit]

This request for deletion has been closed by TUFKAAP (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to Delete.


Template:Archived protected

[edit]

Unused. Template was used with old way of archiving, which is not in use anymore. No need to keep. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]

Comments

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


This request for deletion has been closed by TUFKAAP (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to Delete.


Category:High-definition television

[edit]

Encyclopedic category, will become irrelevant when HD TV is the norm. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Speedied by SVTCobra but recreated. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi, there are at least 4 more news here, which could be integrated there, but me, as a normal user, can't add new categories to them, because they are older news. and please tell me, when hdtv will be the norm? that will take some time, and then, where do you want to put sdtv topics, which will be coexisting for a long time. I don't vote here, becuase I'm new and I added it. I just added my point here. greets, --Andreas -horn- Hornig (talk) 10:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Television will remain television, at least as far as Joe Public is concerned. The only time HDTV is going to be an issue is when you're buying a new TV set. As to YouTube, that's not television, they don't broadcast. To be really pedantic they do video on demand over the Internet. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yep, but it doesn't solve a problem if one portal, eg. Televion, is stuffed with article nobody wants to search topics. so what's the non category option so list articles according to their content, which is also visible underneath the article? If I want to know more about one aspect of the news, I usually look in which category they are in and find more and more up to date news. so, if I just want to be more precise and want to accumulate all high-definition articles into such a "folder", what is the alternative? greets, --Andreas -horn- Hornig (talk) 11:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Andreas, the article for which you created this category doesn't even fit under television, nevermind high-definition television. Your article was about YouTube and some sort of higher resolution videos at 1280x720, which do not (by any measure) approach high-definition television standards. --SVTCobra 02:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


August 27, 2008 (closed December 1, 2008)

[edit]

This request for deletion has been closed by Example (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to Delete. I fully protected and archived all the articles listed on those pages. As a result, there is no need for the pages to be kept, so I deleted them. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC) .[reply]


Wikinews:Archived articles protection list/June 2007

[edit]

and

Wikinews:Archived articles protection list/May 2007

[edit]

These subpages are lists of articles that have been archived, but not protected. While we need such a list, I suggest a more comprehensive one that doesn't discriminate based on date. However, the bigger problem is that these lists are malformed. As you can see, in some cases they replicate entire articles. Worse still (in my opinion), they show up in every category that the articles on the lists show up on. Before deleting, a new list should be created and linked to from WN:ARCHIVE and the project page Wikinews:Archived articles protection list should be marked {{Historical}}. --SVTCobra 00:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

It seems that PatrickFlaherty depopulated the May version (by protecting the articles) and then deleted it. --SVTCobra 17:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm halfway done with June. I removed all the ones I've done from the page already. I'll finish the rest when I get back in a few days. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 04:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]

Exterminieren — Agreed Gopher65talk 00:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


November 6, 2008

[edit]

This request for deletion has been closed by brianmc (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to delete.


The Rosicrucian Fellowship announces its 13th International European Conference

[edit]

Several editors have expressed concerns, both on the talk page and in tags to the article, that there are WN:COI issues, not news issues, and that the article is Written more like a press release than an NPOV news article. I think it is not appropriate for a news article on this site and should be deleted. Cirt (talk) 13:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Hi. All the previous raised concerns, WN:NPOV, WN:COI and Newswordiness were addressed at the news collaboration page in a variety of occasions. Deep re-editings to the news, including removing links and paragraphs that appearently were not consensual, were made from its initial version previous to the 1st review,[1] in order to comply those concerns to its current version [2].
I hereby suggest that, in spite of all editing efforts made by its author in a spirit of good will, the issue currently raised, tagged for deletion,[3] is an irreflected act of personal bias (POV) from some review editor(s) that features suppression of news from the field of Religion, that is Religious intolerance, in this valuable Wikimedia project, in spite of the established revelance of the news of the mentioned near 100 years old Christian organization in the U.S. that has a international formal presence, membership and has endeavoured fraternal and humanitarian work worldwide throughout all the past 20th century and into this new 21st century.
My humbly request is a rather inner one, philosophical if you wish, it is an appeal I make to all good hearted Wikinews editors and readers to support this constructive news article that intends no promotion but only to spread little good news of HOPE (the only gift of the gods left in Pandora's box) into the troubled world we currently dwell in. Blessed be. --Vilalva (talk) 14:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put a simple question to you: are you willing to have an article written on your particular brand of Christianity linked with articles on Satanism, Scientology, and Islamic Terrorism? Cause those are all "religious" articles. Wikinews has a duty to be as unbiased as possible. With respect, I'd say that you don't desire to have articles espousing the awesomeness involved in converting from Christianity to Satanism. But that means that Wikinews can't have an extremely biased article espousing the views of Christianity either.
Now, if you want to do an interview... even a relatively softball interview (as many of our interviews are)... with one of the people involved, I'd be fine with that. But don't be ticked off when it ends up sitting beside an interview on Satanism. Religion is religion, and we can't favour one above another. Wikinews is not a pulpit to be used for brainwashing people in one direction or another. Gopher65talk 19:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear editor Gopher65, the viewpoint you present, through your straightforward comment, deserve my respect as it is argumented-reasoned upon logic. However, being that same logic (devived from the Logos), that is, the grasp of Logic, currently as limited as the individuals who reason upon it, the deductions made are lacking of higher understanding regarding where Religion comes from (origin), what Is (function) and how It evolves... Also, the key to your comment -- and to the whole wide world -- has a name: Healing. Neverthless, the answer to the simple question of yours and, simultaneously, to the final outcome of the humble request for HOPE this little servant is bringing forth has already been taught unto us all: not my will, but Thine, be done.
--Vilalva (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please learn to write concise comments that don't worship the deity you choose? --Brian McNeil / talk 23:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
  • Remove Whether or not WN:COI can be proven, this article is the announcement of of a conference held by and for the Rosicrucian Fellowship, it is not a conference open to all. Therefore, it fails the "what is news" requirement that stories "reflect events that impact people and explain why their subject matter is important to readers who may be unfamiliar with the topic." This is better left for a fellowship newsletter, which incidentally is the sole source for the announcement. --SVTCobra 22:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A little note in two parts; part #1: please keep in mind that althouth this news I am trying to get published may not have relevance to the usual reader, they can however have direct relevance to the specific audience, groups of individuals, that I have identified in the collaboration page, which being a restricted audience it nevertheless may count from a few thousands to a few millions of individuals (while potential interested readers); note too that the same happens to many news subjects published at the Wikinews [or any other media agency] from specific fields: politics, sports, technology, etc. news which may or may not [clearly] have a broader specific audience, it varies upon the news contents; however, in spite of being valuable news from a specific field, some or many of the times they have litte or even no direct interest-relevance to the usual reader.--Vilalva (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A little note in two parts; part #2: As an example, let us look into the technology field, my professional field: imagine that the Open Source community announces that a software called "Baby4" (invented name as no promotion of any possible real software currently under development is intended) is being released in an announced date -- after many years of being under development -- and Wikinews, along with other media agencies, publishes a news, under that specific field of technology, with one of two sources from the related community saying that this new open source cross-platform w:Directory services software is expected to be released and with a brief paragraph of what this mentioned software contains. The usual reader usually only superficially acquainted with this field, will most probably say "What do I care?", that is, finds it not relevant. However, those from the field and most probably the news author-editor, knows that those news constitute news for hundred of thousands, eventually more, of sytems and network administrators worldwide (in ISPs, companies, schools, governments, universities, ...) that have been expecting for a long time ago for this kind of software to allow full compatibility in computer server-client networks running Windows and Unix/Linux operating systems, an open source software that is (hipotetically) known to have all it takes to re-shape the current domain of proprietary systems worldwide; to the usual reader, he does not know, but he and millions, if not more, will most probably be working (internet access, mobile communications, teaching platforms, etc.), only a few months or years later, upon an implementation of the same Directory Service "Baby4" that he was reading about in the news and that made him, due to being not so well acquainted with the field, profer the initial comment of "What do I care?" (not relevant). It is not easy to give a so clear picture as I intended due to my English language limitations, but still I hope this example, with hipotetical news from the technology field, is written clear enough. So, "I rest my case". ;) Best, --Vilalva (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These superlengthy responses are not helpful. Re your part 2. That comparison doesn't work. The story in question is akin to the makers of "Baby4" calling a meeting for their employees. That is not news. --SVTCobra 07:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but then, following your logic, how came these "calling a meeting for their employees" to be considered news?: [4], [5], [6] & [7], etc. ... Cases of two weights and two measures? Thanks. --Vilalva (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but then those are publicly held companies and companies whose products are used by anyone (without restriction on race, creed, or religion). They are not upcoming meetings between employees and or members. I suppose this is my fault. I should not have replied to you within my vote. It gave the false impression that it is OK to badger people that vote differently than that which you wish. Actually, this behavior is not usually well received. --SVTCobra 19:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear editor SVTCobra: as well as those companies are known to many costumers so also the w:Rosicrucians have been known to many Spiritual seekers ("without restriction on race, creed, or religion": The world is my country, and to make good is my religion., w:Thomas Paine) in the history of the western countries throughout the last centuries. Personally, and with all the respect that your editorial function here deserves, it is not too important what you and your fellows choose to vote, as far as you do it, sustain your point of view and may take responsability for it if needed be; thus my words do not aim to change your position. Anyway, I had already perceveid since an earlier stage the annoyance of my comments and the reluctancy to address the major issues they raise. Yours sincerely, --Vilalva (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until creator's concerns have been addressed; it is rude and unnecessary to delete an article while good faith discussion is underway. Jade Knight (talk) 08:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • To closing admin: Please note that this was a canvassed keep vote. Cirt (talk) 08:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you suggesting that my vote should be discounted, as if I have not posted recently on the Deletion requests page? Jade Knight (talk) 09:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your last post to this page was over a week ago. Cirt (talk) 09:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nevermind the fact that I have been out of town for nearly the entire past week, and did not have time to check out this page in that time. It seems to me that you are attempting to dig up reasons to discount a perfectly valid opposing vote, Cirt. Please remember that my vote is cast in good faith. Jade Knight (talk) 09:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is merely a note to the closing admin. The closing administrator may interpret the sequence of events from canvass to vote as they see fit, and I will of course respectfully defer to their judgment on that. Cirt (talk) 09:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Please allow a note too to the closing admin [8][9]: due to the previous lack of will to address the point of views and the request for help that I have expressed at the collaboration page and the subsequent added deletion tag by the above review editor, I have been trying to follow the Dispute resolution steps. Also please note that my appeal to editor Jade Knight[10], featuring an alert to the discussion process that is occurring here, and that I would like to extend to all Wikinews readers and editors, does not and could not -- Principle -- contain a direct canvassing request to the mentioned editor for a specific support-voting as explicitly inferred by review editor Cirt, both in his above comment and in the comment this reviewer has left in my talk page. --Vilalva (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Your intention in posting to Jade Knight (talk · contribs)'s talk page is pretty obvious that you wanted the editor to come here and vote Keep. You say yourself in your comment above: featuring an alert to the discussion process that is occurring here... Cirt (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Actually, Vilalva in no way told me which way to vote, and had Vilalva received significant responses to his or her concerns, I would have voted "remove" here. I vote keep because I feel that there have been a significant number of unaddressed concerns and comments coming from Vilalva which appear to have been largely ignored; the deletion request is premature. Jade Knight (talk) 03:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I would not usually vote delete in a DR until concerns have been adressed, and I think that this article could probably be brought to publish status quite quickly. However, due to all the failed reviews and such, the announcement was made too long ago for it to be publishable. I am sorry Vilalva, and it is not your fault, but this is the way I am going to have to vote. Also Cirt, not going to DR for one week does not mean anything. I often don't vote for weeks on DR, and I do not believe that makes my vote less valid. It did not look like canvassing to me, and I have no problem with Vilalva seeking the opinion of others. Anonymous101talk 20:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have to agree with the viewpoints presented here by the nominator and others. The content is newsworthy, in my opinion, however it is not written in such a way as to be a news story, rather than an encyclopaedic entry. --Skenmy talk 20:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that I had tried to address the style issue by rewritting paragraphs and I even had requested help, that was not provided, at the collaboration page. Otherwise, truly respecting your whole comment, I appreciate those words of yours addressing the newsworthy issue. Thank you. --Vilalva (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


This request for deletion has been closed by Cirt (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to Early close as Delete - unanimous consensus to delete, and no substantive changes made to article since it was first marked as abandoned..


Sarah Palin's Medical History Revealed

[edit]

Attempt to insert story into archives which is poorly formatted, does not use {{date}}, is now {{stale}}, and borderline {{notnews}} as Palin is not VP-elect. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

That article was tagged as abandoned on Nov 5 (diff). Can't we just reinstate that tag and let WN:PROD run its due course? --SVTCobra 16:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


This request for deletion has been closed by brianmc (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to deleted by creator.


User:Brianmc/Obama assassination attempts

[edit]

This page is inappropriate use of this project space and should be deleted. I agree with this comment and this comment at this page's talk page by SVTCobra (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Users are generally left to do what they will, within reason, inside their userspace. That is provided they are a mostly constructive contributor. Normal project rules don't apply to userspace, and I could have created this in Story prep and run the pool on the talk. Then you would have grounds for complaint that the pool is inappropriate, but face facts. It would be highly surprising if someone does not try to take a shot at Obama. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a human being, and someone's life that we are talking about. It is a page hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, on project space normally used in a project that is intended to be part of the press. It is highly inappropriate and disgusting. And it reflects very poorly on Wikinews that this page exists. Cirt (talk) 10:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you don't think MSM already have obits based on a successful assassination? That's reality. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prepared obituaries - yes. Pages like this, absolutely not, I do not think the mainstream media maintains pages like this hosted on their websites. Cirt (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is not Wikipedia, but since we don't seem to have a written policy, it may be useful to look at what they have at w:WP:UP#NOT. --SVTCobra 11:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Had I written two articles in story prep, one on a failed attempt, and one on a successful attempt, I don't see a huge difference. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you dense? You don't see a difference between prepared stories, which I believe are standard for the media, and a pointless betting pool? I mean, really? Are you serious? Okay, so let's just break this down. Is it possible, even likely, that someone will at least attempt to assassinate Obama? Unfortunately, yes. Thus, is it reasonable to have prepared stories for either successful or unsuccessful attempts? Of course. Now, as for this page of yours, what purpose does it serve? Nothing. So not only is there a difference, there is a huge difference. Jennavecia (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some excerpts from Wikipedia's policies on user pages, that I believe apply. Wikinews does not have a formalised policy, which is why we had to have a DR. Please see: Reasons for deleting this. --SVTCobra 16:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
"inevitable bad press"? Wouldn't you also expect that from censorship of a bit of gallows humour? --Brian McNeil / talk 09:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's Userspace, NPOV doesn't apply. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove - Think of the bad press. I also don't think a page where users vote on when we think someone will be assassinated is very appropriate. סּ Talk 08:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add your eng-lang username to your sig? Eg, "talk to Samekh"?
The page does not expect a successful assassination, but an attempt or attempts. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you don't like it, don't look at it. Just like porn. Those who are voting delete are pitting my right to free speech against their right to go, "Eww, that's tasteless - censor it!"; this is simply not valid grounds for deletion. Nobody has put forward anything per policy or even obliquely linked to policy that justifies this deletion. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't be allowed to host porn on your user page, either. Just in case you were wondering. --SVTCobra 11:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison I was making was to not looking at things you find offensive, not suggesting I place porn in my user space. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the point Brianmc. I'm voting against this not because I think it is tasteless (I like tasteless things), but because I think it is inappropriate for Wikinews. If you want to host this on your own webpage then I would have no problem with it. Gopher65talk 16:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A bit of fun dosen't really matter... Danger^Mouse (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Just because something is possible, doesn't make it appropriate for user space. This page is a disgrace and it reflects poorly on not only the creator, but the project. Where this project lacks a user space guideline, common sense should pick up. Jennavecia (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Wikinews doesn't have a written WN:UP policy, if we did we wouldn't have this DR. However, it has been common policy on all Foundation run wikis, that I have ever been a part of, that User Pages and subpages are a place to let others know a bit about who you are. They can also be places for works-in-progress or for collaboration with other users in a way that furthers the aims of the overall project. Our overall aim is News, this page does nothing to further this project. User pages are not to be thought of as personal websites or blogs. User pages are not for running games, be they dead pools or otherwise. --SVTCobra 16:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I favor removal but only weakly. If this were on a private website I'd be more than happy to chime in and give my own estimate. But there's no good reason to keep this on wikinews. However, I'm generally inclined to give productive users a lot of leeway about what they do in userspace and Brian is obviously in that category. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per JoshuaZ. Anonymous101talk 17:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it's in userspace. Respectfully requesting Brianmc migrate it voluntarily to a more appropriate venue, such as a personal offsite blog. The length of this discussion suggests it detracts attention from our main goal of writing news. Durova (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - this isn't funny, that page makes WIKIMEDIA look racist and prejudice and the actions of one project will indirectly affect all the other projects, betting on when and how someone will die just gives Wikinews a bad name and even worse, it was started by an admin/CU...--Cometstyles 20:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


October 31, 2008

[edit]

This request for deletion has been closed by Cirt (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to Delete and use Category:Companies instead.


Category:Corporations

[edit]

We have two categories that essentially are the same: Category:Companies and Category:Corporations. Several companies are listed in both. I proposed we delete Category:Corporations and move over the cats that are not already in Category:Companies.

Comments

[edit]
If Category:Companies has been populated by the non-overlapping members, then the closing-admin should feel free to do their thing. --SVTCobra 01:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


October 25, 2008

[edit]

This request for deletion has been closed by TUFKAAP (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to Delete.


Orson Scott Card criticizes journalists for blaming housing crisis on Bush

[edit]

Failed three reviews. Plus, SVTCobra (talk · contribs) makes a valid point on the talkpage: Further, it is stale, if for no other reason than the fact that his open letter was written October 5. Cirt (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • The third "review" contained no specific details other than Bastique's opinion (without any evidence) that Card is an unreliable source. It did not criticize the article in question at all. Jade Knight (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I worked hard to address (fix) the concerns voiced in the first two reviews. Is it Wikinews policy to delete anything which fails x number of reviews, when it clear that the writer is trying to improve the article? Jade Knight (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also appreciate seeing the Wikinews policy or guideline on the timing of news; I am not a professional reporter, and I've had trouble finding Wikinews' policy on this; is there some reference which talks about how to evaluate whether a potential piece of news is "too old"? This seems like a critical issue at Wikinews: I've put a few hours into trying to find sources, engaging in discussion, etc., here, and it's very important to me to be able to determine this in advance, so I don't waste my time in the future. Jade Knight (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would appreciate it people would consider responding to my comments. Jade Knight (talk) 09:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
If that is the case, move it into an appropriate space within Wikinews:Story preparation. --SVTCobra 02:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


October 13, 2008

[edit]

This request for deletion has been closed by Cirt (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to Delete.


Template:1

[edit]

Useless. Anonymous101talk 17:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Votes

[edit]
Any other real template could be used on this help page. And this isn't even transcluded on the help page so it could be used as an example without actually existing.Anonymous101talk 18:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of using these templates is to keep our help pages in sync with the Meta help pages. Unless you think en.Wikinews should take over the creation and maintenance of all Mediawiki help systems, it would probably be best if we keep the linked templates and other support articles as necessary. It's simply a volunteer cost-savings measure. - Amgine | t 18:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that template:1 was purposefully created as part of that help page. If you look at the help page it is a near solid mass of red links, with that {{1}} as one of the few blue links. But it doesn't show what the help page says it should show. So what I think happened is that someone just created a template named "1", which happened to be the same name as a template linked from the help page. Gopher65talk 18:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm... It used contain the text <nowiki>{{{1}}}</nowiki>, iirc. But it appears the meta help page has dramatically changed since then so we should figure out how to use the help system again. - Amgine | t 19:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove -- TharikrishTalk 02:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


October 14, 2008

[edit]

This request for deletion has been closed by Cirt (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to Delete, then made as Redirect.


{{Joinus}}

[edit]

This simply replicates the function of {{Welcome-anon}}. One of them should be deleted. I think that it would be better to keep {{Welcome-anon}}, because it is the same as the standard {{Welcome}} template, but targets anonymous users. Gopher65talk 22:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Votes

[edit]
Yeah, it occurred to me a while after I made this that even if this DR went through it would be a redirect rather than a delete. It's still an effective delete though (removing content), so I'm going to wait for consensus be decided. No opposition so far though:). Gopher65talk 16:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


This request for deletion has been closed by Cirt (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to Delete.


Category:Browsing Wikinews

[edit]

Unused category from 2006. Appears to serve no current function. --Durova (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Votes

[edit]

Remove --SVTCobra 21:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Exterminieren! Exterminieren! — Yeeeet another useless Category/Template: Exterminate! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gopher65 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 14 October 2008 Remove -- TharikrishTalk 02:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


October 15, 2008

[edit]
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.

Template:2

[edit]

Template used in help system, teaching how to use templates on Wikinews. - Amgine | t

Votes

[edit]
According to the system - there has never been at page there. Nothing to undelete --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 16:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.


October 13, 2008

[edit]

This request for deletion has been closed by Cirt (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to Delete.


Template:2005 London bombing articles

[edit]

Unused template, I see no use in it. Its about something that happened years ago so , if it's not used now it will never be used Anonymous101talk 17:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]

Comments

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


This request for deletion has been closed by Cirt (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to Delete.


Template:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake casualties

[edit]

Unused template, I see no use in it. Its about something that happened years ago so , if it's not used now it will never be used Anonymous101talk 17:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]

Remove—again, useless Gopher65talk 17:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC) Remove Kamnet (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Jesus, I would just speedy delete it o.o Julián (reply) 22:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove -- TharikrishTalk 02:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


This request for deletion has been closed by Cirt (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to closed as delete by Anonymous101.


Image:Bob Friend.jpg

[edit]

From competing news agency. Anonymous101talk 17:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

PROCEED TO DELETE - This image is not presently replaceable with one from a non-news agency source. Go ahead and shift it, and I will keep looking. :) Iceflow (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


September 26, 2008

[edit]

This request for deletion has been closed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to Result: No undeletion.


Template:Extreme templating

[edit]

A mocking piece of humour allegedly never used but generally added to articles facing imminent death. Sneaky deletion with few votes by long-standing contributors. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

The original August 8, 2008 deletion request can be seen here. --SVTCobra 22:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]

Do not restore While I was ambiguous about the deletion, it is not worth restoring. Proper use of {{Tasks}} should avoid the need for this and should be the direction in which we are moving. --SVTCobra 22:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


September 19, 2008

[edit]

This request for deletion has been closed by Cirt (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to delete.


Wikinews:German Wikinews - Editorials

[edit]

... and the redirect Editorial ...
I cannot fathom why we need or want this page. It seems to be a translation of de:Wikinews:Editorial, but otherwise unrelated to en.wikinews. It is not part of our history and it does not serve any purpose. Thus, I feel it should be deleted. The redirect needs to be deleted or point to WN:NOT. --SVTCobra 01:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Votes

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


September 12, 2008

[edit]

This request for deletion has been closed by Cirt (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to Delete.


Category:Latin America

[edit]

This is a linguistic category, not a geographical one. It was previously deleted and serves no competent purpose on Wikinews. My personal opinion is that any category which covers more than one country should only be used where multiple countries are impacted or mentioned in the article and this particular category cannot competently be applied. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Votes

[edit]

RemoveNot a well defined geographical region-- TharikrishTalk 13:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Deletion_requests/Archives/2008/Q4&oldid=4582985"