Jump to content

Wikinews:Deletion requests/Archives/Deleted Archive 15

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!

January 31

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 06:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the article is the notice This article incorporates text from http://www.misna.org/news.asp?IDLingua=1&id=177620, which has a license that is compatible with Wikinews.

However, the license is not compatible with Wikinews'. MISNA's editor-in-chief via email told me that it is not okay substantially modify MISNA's work. The content cannot therefore be under CC-BY-SA 2.5, I believe. Please see the Talk Tomos 00:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has been listed on proposed deletion.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 01:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
we are not cc-by-sa-2.5, just cc-by-2.5 (its still unacceptable either way, but important difference). Bawolff 02:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 30

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 06:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reads like a press release.--86.136.225.72 09:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

moving back on top, because someone removed deletion templates from article. Bawolff 08:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 06:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No sources, not news. FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 01:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

have tagged as abandoned. can be PROD-ed.  — Doldrums(talk) 04:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 06:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV, speculative, only sources are from blogs. FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 01:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

have tagged as abandoned. can be PROD-ed.  — Doldrums(talk) 04:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 06:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just has Wikinews:Article stage tags and the template for it in there. Requesting speedy. --Thunderhead - (talk) 12:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tag, should use category:ready any how. Bawolff 02:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 29

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 06:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unsourced, makes defamatory claims.  — Doldrums(talk) 04:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 28

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER

Quite useless (doesn't work, dpends on non-exsistant templates, proablly copied from 'pedia, all flags are in the format image:Flag of foo.svg or image:flag of the foo.svg anywaysBawolff 20:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It dosn't link anywhere. So, why keep? FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 22:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 06:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need this template. FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 19:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 06:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of counties in Minnesota. I don't think we need this template. FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 19:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well considering not one of the links work on it perhaps not. Bawolff 20:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 06:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't belive the screenshot adds any value to the story thats not already there, therefor I don't think the screenshot is fair use. Bawolff 02:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • But its proof, that shows it was not made it, why not leave it up? I think it does add value b/c people can see the actual incident in picture (its a great method of confirmation) -71.30.182.137 03:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think screenshots, and other non-free media should only be used when their is no other alternative method of describing the information. The information is easily described in text, I don't see a real use for this file. Bawolff 03:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Wikinews is in competition with MSNBC at all. The news story reflects a happening. -Edbrown05 10:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use is not allowed on commons (and even if it was, we're equally not allowed to embed to it, if they did allow fair use their, because the fair use wouldn't make a difference where its hosted). only free images are allowed at commons. It is a news event that we're reporting on, but this image doesn't help it being reported on as the way the screenshot is currently embeded,you can't make out anything anyways (IMHO). Bawolff 20:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am opposed to the idea of "stealing" content. I support the idea of recording content for the purpose of reporting. -Edbrown05 06:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 27

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 06:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gafaddict put it up for speedy with reason "Tim Kalemkarian" is not a major figure in the public eye -- looking him up on Google gives him no credible results. I think it doesn't meet speedy (or at least not for that reason) so putting it here. Bawolff 22:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable. Tim Kalemkarian is running for US President, US Senate & US House. Tim Kalemkarian is an official candidate registered with the US Federal Election Commission as a candidate for US President 2008 & 2012; and US House 2008; and US Senate 2010. Tim Kalemkarian is a member of a major party. I believe Tim Kalemkarian is the best candidate. Therefor: Tim Kalemkarian is the best major candidate for US President, US Senate & US House. Kalmekarian added more information to the story so it is longer and better. Please keep it. Therefor the story is important. Tim Kalemkarian 03:15 am 30 January 2007. Anonymous3 11:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)anonymous4 21:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 06:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text was not copied from my BPO manuscript - please make this correction if you can - the text referred to the contents of that publication. "Copied" is not an accurate term here. Thanks~

Eag 04:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 26

[edit]


January 24

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 06:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Acording to wikipedia, this comes from the bbc, and I can't find any other source that is acceptable. I'm running it through here to see if anyone else knows a source. otherwise It'd have to replace it with Image:Allende-Presidente-crop.jpg I geuss, but the other one is better so I am hoping someone can find something. Bawolff 23:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found this explanation, apparently the photographer is unknown but it's definitely not from the BBC so I think it's wrong to argue they're the competing news source here.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 06:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The rational for it seems a bit thin, and its currently not used. Bawolff 23:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to delete. If I remember correctly, the image was uploaded by the author with a drop shadow and a random name like GFDG1235.jpg, saved-and-cropped it, then reuploaded it under a different name. -- Zanimum 14:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 23

[edit]


Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is speedy. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.


Not news. bordering speedy. Bawolff 01:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bordering speedy? Speedy Delete Thunderhead - (talk) Congrajulations to Kat! 01:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 02:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 21

[edit]



January 19

[edit]


January 18

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 14:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Press release.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 14:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Press release.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 14:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only used to list Wikinews:Categorization.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 14:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This relates to Wikinews:Spam track, which seems like an odd system to me, and I consider it to be a shrine for vandals...--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 16

[edit]


January 14

[edit]


January 9

[edit]


January 16

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks source, suspected copyvio, licence doubtful.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:51, 16 January 2007 (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.


January 14

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
press release


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.


January 12

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 21:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pov, compilation of old events with unsubstantiated, unattributed allegations of ties b/w them, advocacy sources not mainstream.  — Doldrums(talk) 18:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looks like an editorial. DragonFire1024 20:50, 13 January 2007 (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.


January 10

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 21:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
not news.  — Doldrums(talk) 18:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete FellowWikiNews (W) 01:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Thunderhead - (talk) Congrajulations to Kat! 01:43, 11 January 2007 (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.


January 9

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pointless - category:Admin, special:listusers/sysop. Bawolff :-)(-: 00:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete FellowWikiNews (W) 01:44, 11 January 2007 (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.


January 8

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete.. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)}}[reply]

I am tempted to speedy delete this as an obvious hoax under WN:SD but let's just assume for the sake of procedure that there is any truth to this article. As shown on the talk page, this story is from 2001 and has been recycled several times since then so ipso facto it does not qualify as news. --+Deprifry+ 20:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Del unless contents are substantiated by a reliable source or the Prof. Chang can be verifiably identified and contacted.  — Doldrums(talk) 04:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete! This kind of hoax propagated through unreliable publications is exactly what provokes justified outcries if it gets published here. Browsing Human Genome website publications section, I wonder why they only present those boring pure genetics papers and don't feature their definite ET proof. and -- oops! -- I'm sort of a geneticist and didn't quite notice I've been working in Area 51... Hunter 08:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete see talk page comments. But I strongly oppose speedy deletion of these Alien-related contributions.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete! The humans must not know about the hybridization scheme until it is too late for them to do anything. The Truth is not out there. Now go away. JoshuaZ 04:51, 10 January 2007 (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.


January 6

[edit]

Superseded by Category:Wikinews official policy.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not all policy's are official, but non-opfficial policies should be in category:Wikinews.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bawolff (talkcontribs) 22:18, 6 January 2007
Delete FellowWikiNews (W) 01:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not news, doesn't meet WN:CG. It's an announcement for an event, I suggest that it be submitted again when the event actually takes places. Or it could be moved to story preparation. Other problems are obvious POV (what bang???) and ment as promotion.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:49, 6 January 2007 (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.


Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion on talk page, and link on top of talk page.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

del it's not for wikinews to report speculation, where we don't even know who to source it to.  — Doldrums(talk) 12:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's probably made-up. - Patricknoddy 9:12am, January 4, 2007 (EST)
Delete The source of the WN article sounds and looks like an editroial/opinion of the writer with absolutley no scientists or physicists names mentioned, no university no nothing. DragonFire1024 20:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Though if "extraterrestrials" (or "extra-universals") happen to exist, your welcome to post an interview request terinjokes | Talk | Come visit the WikiBistro 20:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : no scientists name, no paper cited, no labs. it's april fool in India ? Jacques Divol 10:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: single 'source', speculation, etc. Need more? Hégésippe | ±Θ± 10:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ±Θ± and Dragonfire. JoshuaZ 18:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doldrums. FellowWikiNews (W) 18:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I think the basis for this speculation is a stream of articles concerning the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, where they're trying to reproduce the conditions of the big bang. But the extraterrestrials-part is speculation.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:06, 5 January 2007 (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.


January 3

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 21:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt to create October dated article in December. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good spotting: support.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could we not keep this? It's a good article, I would only change the date. Apparently, there is a source for December 16.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--220.233.176.13 12:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC) I created the article, sorry. Where are the guidelines for old articles?[reply]

guidelines for old articles ? we must limite this kind of articles. Anyway, the date of an article follows the same rules than any other news article : it's the date of publication or the date of the first writing. It's not the date of the event.
If you want to write an article about an old news you must use today date (for example) not the date of the event, otherwise it's an anachronism.
it's important for future possible studies.Jacques Divol


Not used in any article. Possible copyvio. FellowWikiNews (W) 19:00, 3 January 2007 (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.


Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is Delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request. FellowWikiNews (W) 01:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not used in any article. Possible copyvio. FellowWikiNews (W) 19:00, 3 January 2007 (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 30

[edit]

copyvio. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.221.198.241 (talkcontribs) 20:52, 30 December 2006

I doubt it. From where?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Copyvio from http://www.rawa.org/gulsha.htm (URL found in article). Hégésippe | ±Θ± 10:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. see talk page.  — Doldrums(talk) 15:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 18

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 22:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I just feel this is way to self-promotional. Bawolff 02:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If you look at this site, you already see our fund drive. AWESOME article though. I hate to vote delete. :( Thunderhead - (talk) Congrajulations to Kat! 02:17, 18 December 2006 (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 17

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 22:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old news before it even started, not newsworthy almost a month late - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 11:42, 17 December 2006 (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 16

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 01:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

appropriate for encyclopedia, not very useful in news articles.  — Doldrums(talk) 07:08, 16 December 2006 (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 15

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is Speedy deleted. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

FellowWikiNews (W) I am Canadien! 16:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not news. FellowWikiNews (W) I am Canadien! 03:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy it. Zeest(Talk)(Newpages) 07:47, 16 December 2006 (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 5

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 12:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic as Australasia is hard to define. Oceania is the one we have used for a long time now. Personally I prefer Australasia to Oceania, but Oceania is the standard wiki classification. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 03:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 12:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prison : somewhat problematic because ill defined. Contains a mix-up of articles with the word prison.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete, unless a clear definition can be come up with for this category that allows NPOV application. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

December 4

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 16:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belongs on WP, not Wikinews. —FellowWikiNews (W) 14:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

December 3

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 20:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No content. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have Speedy Deleted the article as it appears to have no content. —FellowWikiNews (W) 14:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 12:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 30

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 12:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a rework of a Football Association logo that is only available for fair use. I can't think of a fair use for this decorative version. In any case, it is a coat of arms, so it should be possible to create a free version. -- InfantGorilla 02:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • ARGUMENTS -

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is a redirect was made. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 12:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of Brad and Angelina's bodyguards arrested after saying racial slurs to parents, old news. —FellowWikiNews (W) 21:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Nzgabriel | Talk 08:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete DragonFire1024 20:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 27

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is speedy delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 12:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not news, just a temporarily unavailable website. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteFellowWikiNews (W) 22:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have Speedy Deleted the article as it appears to just be a playground. --Skenmy(tcwi) 09:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 23

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 12:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not news, writen in forign language. —FellowWikiNews (W) 01:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 17

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 03:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template, not sure of purpose. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has never been used. —FellowWikiNews (W) 20:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 03:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Press release uploaded yesterday, tagged today. Give them 3 days to turn it into an article. --Hrothulf 21:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 16

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 03:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

notnews, 11-month old event.  — Doldrums(talk) 09:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 15

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 03:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

notnews, editorial piece.  — Doldrums(talk) 19:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 03:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not news, editorial. —FellowWikiNews (W) 20:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 13

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 03:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's basically a one-sided promotional press release, and there isn't anything newsworthy enough going on to clean up at this point. Rob T Firefly 14:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We wrote the press release and originally submitted it to CanadaIT, The Register and quite a few other organizations. If I failed to meet the requirements I'll review and resubmit later. - Robert User:wasabinut

We don't allow press releases here as they're one sided. (I'm fairly certain you didn't write what all your critics said in your press release) An article shouldn't be written by an intreasted party. see WN:NPOV for more information. Bawolff 00:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 03:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewritten already at Fidel Castro not expected to live through 2007. Content nothing. --Sugarpine 01:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied. Bawolff 03:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 12

[edit]

{{closed-dr|delete} MESSEDROCKER 03:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found while creating category Bill Clinton, this has no sources and no date template, but someone did put category Published on it. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 6

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 16:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied press release.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 5

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 16:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marked with {{dr}}, but never actually listed here. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 3

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 11:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Press release. —FellowWikiNews (W) 20:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sockpuppets of Neutralizer and sockpuppet user pages

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete; all user pages of Neutralizer sockpuppets can be deleted. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 16:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion request will close November 10, 2006.

I would like to request the deletion of this category and all the sockpuppet user pages that use this category (with the exception of Dragonfire1024's IP list). Compiling a list of sockpuppets no longer has a purpose, since Neutralizer has been banned and that's that. Additionally, we should avoid as much as possible as trying to build a legacy for a user who has been banned (cf Deny Recognition on Wikipedia and No Shrines for Vandals on Wikiversity). —this is messedrocker (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, however the administators (or an administrator should keep a written record of the category for future reference. Thunderhead(talk) 02:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I have read the two links provided as justification for this DR. Deletion of the category and sockpuppet pages would be correct, but some record of the disruption should be made and also deleted (but with a link to it) so that recent administrators can be brought up to speed on the issue by reading the deleted page. The deleted Category will not list the sockpuppets and thus not serve this purpose. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 11:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Press release. —FellowWikiNews (W) 20:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 11:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not news. —FellowWikiNews (W) 20:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER 11:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old news, strong possibly of copyright Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 23:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete, however it is not copyvio. Thunderhead(talk) 02:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 30

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is template marked as inactive in lieu of deletion in case the template becomes active again. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

this is messedrocker (talk) 01:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually unused, and unmaintained template. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is speedy deleted by an admin, seeing as the page was never useful to begin with. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

this is messedrocker (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I restored this after it was deleted with reasoning that an OTRS report had been filed. This was added to the page by an IP, not an established contributor. There needs to be some verification before we delete things on this basis. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

this is messedrocker (talk) 01:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prepared but never finished. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was the creator - never had time to complete the report and I have since misplaced my notes. Strong Delete. --Skenmy(tcwi) 19:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 29

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

this is messedrocker (talk) 01:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self explanatory. Nyarlathotep 22:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 25

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

this is messedrocker (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this article based on a first hand witness report. I cannot find any corroboration for the story. I now doubt its accuracy. --Yaf201 13:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

del per nom.  — Doldrums(talk) 11:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 22

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

this is messedrocker (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion piece predicting the future.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

del unsourced, pov, abandoned.  — Doldrums(talk) 11:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

this is messedrocker (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It just sucks. Its POV and not really news and no one cares! Ccool2ax 22:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 21

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is speedy delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.  — Doldrums(talk) 16:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly fall unders proposed deletion, not sure. Copy of press release. Bawolff ☺☻ 19:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 19

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is speedy delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

this is messedrocker (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not news, looks like a history lesson.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 5

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

this is messedrocker (talk) 05:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compare and contrast to Category:Hubble Space Telescope. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteFellowWikiNews (W) 20:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 3

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

this is messedrocker (talk) 05:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no src, abandoned, could proablay be speedy, but I want to put it pass here first because someone might want to keep the apple logo and know where the source is. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 28

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

this is messedrocker (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was for speedy, but I don't think it meets speedy (still agree it should be deleted). Comment was Wow, someone went to a punk show. NOT NEWS. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is has been freed of existence. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

this is messedrocker (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio. FellowWikiNews (W) 19:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 25

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

FellowWikiNews (W) 17:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wrongly spelt. is currently redirected to Category:Mathematics but i think a red-link will be better as it shows up the problem. Doldrums 08:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete FellowWikiNews (W) 21:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is keep. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

this is messedrocker (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is very well cited, and about a site that IS notable, this is not news; the fact that there has been a radio interview doesn't make it newsworthy. There is currently no content about the interview itself: just background info, which belongs on Wikipedia.-- Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy, Strong Keep: I just added information on the interview itself. Let me know if it needs more. Thank you. 68.97.47.88 20:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned it up, so I'm changing to keep, and because every objection has been dealt with, I'm also publishing.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 17

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

this is messedrocker (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old article, never resolved NPOV dispute. Falls into archiving territory but I'm not going there. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 16

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

this is messedrocker (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same as Montreal. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

FellowWikiNews (W) 22:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose this to be deleted. There is no NPOV, it is unsourced, isn't original but claims to be (with regards to the fact that it has been documented on Indian music/movies sites; it is gossip); basically, it isn't newsworthy. 82.2.135.152 12:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

support I don't have a clue what that is, but news story isn't what it is. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 15

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

this is messedrocker (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging into Category:Montreal, Quebec, as that seems a better name. Other towns use that naming pattern for cats (Like Brampton, Ontario). Bawolff ☺☻ 06:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please. I agree this should be the format. -- Zanimum 15:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. -- Thunderhead(talk) 02:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the two above users. FellowWikiNews (W) 02:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Montreal is a major international city, not a town. Would LA, San Francisco, Paris, Madrid, Barcelona, ... get the same treatment? If not, then Montreal should not either. (It is the second largest french city in the world, second only to Paris, the second largest city in Canada, the place where the w:Montreal Protocol is named for, contains the WHQ for w:ICAO, w:WADA, w:IATA, ... 70.51.9.229 04:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fully aware of what montreal is, and I believe all comunities regardless of size should be in City, Secondary political division (stae or province ussually) format. I'm also adding toronto to the list. (see above) Bawolff ☺☻ 20:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All images that are dupes from commons

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is Any completely-handled image now on Commons may be speedy deleted. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

this is messedrocker (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:NowCommons. This does not include images here for protection, which shouldn't use this template, and non-images on that list. Some link names may need to be changed. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 11

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

this is messedrocker (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No links to wikinews stories - all to external sources, not neutral, not current. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 10

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

this is messedrocker (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge in to sci &tech. IMHO subcategories should actually be a subcat, not a subcat of a subcat. Bawolff ☺☻ 19:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is speedy delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

--Nzgabriel | NZ Portal | Talk 09:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient, never actually published (has both {{develop}} and {{publish}} --Brian McNeil / talk 17:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 9

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is speedy delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

this is messedrocker (talk) 06:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of Motor sport legend Peter Brock dies, and name is misleading. -- Borofkin 08:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 1

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

this is messedrocker (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an old article that had an NPOV tag removed and publish added after it was about a week old. A missing source had not been resolved and I believe the article can't really be recovered now. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

this is messedrocker (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although it's a direct copy of a page with CC-S.A. copyright status, I propose deletion because it's not news (i.e. not enough current events), it's vanity and not notable.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're not allowed to have CC-SA content. If its CC-SA then its a copy-vio. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]