Jump to content

Wikinews:Deletion requests/Archives/Deleted Archive 9

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!

This archive is closed. If you wish to add a closed deletion request, go to Wikinews:Deletion requests/Archives and find the latest archive.

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 (talk) 21:19, 31 January 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 (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

all ready tagged minimal, from Jan 19 Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 03:31, 28 January 2006 (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 (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Look at it
  2. Same as Portal:Crime and law but less popular

Bawolff ☺☻ 03:00, 28 January 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 (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty certain I've already seen this in an article on Wikinews, but my search-foo isn't helping me find it. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; I also think that I've read it before Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 22:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 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.

MESSEDROCKER (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A .01 upgrade release is, as far as my opinion goes, simply not newsworthy. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol Nyarlathotep 16:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. LoL Delete Jason Safoutin 16:08, 26 January 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.


no source. Bawolff
☺☻ 02:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC) I uploaded non copy vio from Wikipedia. Same file name except the image is a GIF...name: BR-logo.gif. I also added the newer file to the story the copy vio was linked to Jason Safoutin 00:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like gif's so I converted to PNG. (went from 3,263 btyes to 623 bytes) Bawolff ☺☻ 02:20, 28 January 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.

204.8.195.187 14:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted, we already have Portal:Terrorism. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:47, 25 January 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 (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This can't avoid being POV. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ussually I disagree with the whole portals/categories are POV thing, but there's no way around this. Del Bawolff ☺☻ 18:51, 25 January 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 (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned, disputed, previously tagged. - Amgine | talk en.WN 07:52, 25 January 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 (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned, previously tagged. - Amgine | talk en.WN 07:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To bad, but we couldn't ever get that news report to jive with the wikipedia version claiming he got the award years ago. Nyarlathotep 15:20, 25 January 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 (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned, previously tagged. - Amgine | talk en.WN 07:38, 25 January 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 (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned, disputed. - Amgine | talk en.WN 07:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 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 (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

abandoned --Cspurrier 15:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amgine depublished based upon POV issues, which I suspect is the Iran reference. Why not just delete the Iran reference & republish? Oh, wait, I'm a bit confused, Amgine gave it a sources tag, not a npov tag, odd. Nyarlathotep 20:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Old news, abandoned. Jason Safoutin 20:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article was continually being edited up until within 1 day of being declared abandoned[1]; so at the least, the stated reason for deletion must be more reasonable. It is concerning to me because articles which mention Jewish people in a negative light (even as a quote) seem to be "taboo" in western media while the same can not be said for muslims or christians; e.g., "Islamic fundamentalists"..when's the last time we heard about the bad deeds of "Jewish fundamentalists"? Neutralizer 11:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

MESSEDROCKER (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

abandoned --Cspurrier 15:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 20

[edit]

Abandoned--Cspurrier 15:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cspurrier got abandoned due to you blocking me! --169.244.143.115 19:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are creating 1 sentence articles. Jason Safoutin 19:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dragon or jason not 1 sentence look 42 year old man chased by police

I did...once sentence.may 2 if you are lucky. sorry...still Delete Jason Safoutin 19:55, 21 January 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.

--Deprifry|+T+ 06:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned--Cspurrier 15:55, 20 January 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.

--Deprifry|+T+ 06:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a press release, but it seems to have come from one of the individuals involved in the nomination. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:16, 20 January 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.

--Deprifry|+T+ 06:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 19

[edit]
This article exists in at least 2 other forms...maybe just one..and they are published. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 01:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to At least eight people die in office fire in Vladivostok, Russia, and merged to talk. Nyarlathotep 02:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

--Deprifry|+T+ 21:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to turn up on Google, but I guess this sub-language used to report on some music is assumed to be English by the search engine. I'd dispute its newsworthyness, but that's what the vote is for. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:03, 19 January 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.

--Deprifry|+T+ 21:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

--Deprifry|+T+ 12:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the edit summary of the first edit to the article, this appears to be an encyclopaedia article accidentally created in the wrong project. Uncle G 12:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

redirect if possible? Jason Safoutin 22:36, 20 January 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.

--Deprifry|+T+ 21:15, 23 January 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.

--Deprifry|+T+ 21:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned, marked for cleanup - Amgine | talk en.WN 08:35, 19 January 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.

--Deprifry|+T+ 21:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See also Fire in Vladivostok, Russia and Terrible true about fire in Vladivostok, Russia.
Oh, and Severe fire with multiple victims in Vladivostok, Russia :Failure to help as well.
And Severe fire with many victims in Vladivostok, Russia --86.102.12.10 16:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial/opinion, and wikinews all ready has an article (Severe fire with many victims in Vladivostok, Russia) What can should be merged Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 07:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected two to At least eight people die in office fire in Vladivostok, Russia, and deleted the content-free fourth. Nyarlathotep 02:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

--Deprifry|+T+ 21:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 17

[edit]

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

MESSEDROCKER (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to confirm the source, abandoned. - Amgine | talk en.WN 04:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

MESSEDROCKER (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Franklin is dead. In my opinion, this does not qualify as "news". DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 20:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree, but on a side note - his only remaining home was opened in London on this day as a museum. Would make for a good, new focus of the article if anyone's up for the crack. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 02:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as "probably immediately abandoned." His birthday could be news all by itself, depends on how you wrote it. Part of a briefs. Mentioning two unrelated celebrations. etc. But this has virtually no chance of it and probably was immediately abandoned by its author. (But I never knew we had the same Birthday, so I'm amused.) Nyarlathotep 02:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

MESSEDROCKER (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned, minimal, and disputed. - Amgine | talk en.WN 23:09, 16 January 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 (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwikied to s:End-of-ceasefire declaration by CPN (Maoists), 2 January 2006 - unofficial translation - Amgine | talk en.WN 22:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 15

[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 (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mis-placed encyclopaedia article. Wikinews is not an encyclopaedia. Uncle G 01:11, 16 January 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 (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Single sentence, pretty much looks abandoned and not noticed because the current new article template doesn't include {{develop}} --Brian McNeil / talk 20:33, 15 January 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.

Tomos 12:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-vio Bawolff ☺☻ 09:00, 15 January 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.

Tomos 12:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-vio. Bawolff ☺☻ 09:00, 15 January 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.

Tomos 12:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio. Bawolff ☺☻ 09:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 14

[edit]

This one is entertaining, the alleged original author just wants a bank page, and at one point it had a {{speedy}} as a cut'n'paste. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Torpedo it. -Edbrown05 23:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's already caused too much of a stir and now it's temp page is gone too.... --TUFKAAP 06:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Amgine | talk en.WN 23:37, 16 January 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.

--Deprifry|+T+ 14:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. We're not J-14, Seveteen or Blender or whatever dumb shit they put crap like this in.
  2. I'm not British, so I haven't heard of them.
  3. I don't give a damn.
  4. I still don't give a damn.
  5. I could careless.
  6. Girl "bands" suck ass.
  7. No sources cited.
  8. It's a "rumor"
  9. Rumors are not news. --TUFKAAP 18:56, 14 January 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.

--Deprifry|+T+ 14:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may or may not be news, but their is no reason for such a wikinews article to differ from the wikipedia article 2005. If anyone is interested, one of the leads may be temporarily changed to point to the wikipedia 2005 article, without creating any wikinews article at all. Nyarlathotep 15:01, 14 January 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.

--Deprifry|+T+ 14:08, 18 January 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.

MESSEDROCKER (talk) 04:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

old news and maybe incorrect? DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 17:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 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 (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deem abandoned based upon edit history of 169.244.143.115. Nyarlathotep 18:43, 13 January 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 (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deem abandoned based upon edit history of 169.244.143.115, Its cute, but I go to fark for such. Nyarlathotep 18:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the time for this one, but I didn't chase down who listed it as I agree with them. This is an "enthusiastic" contributor who wants to direct what news we report on rather than actually report on the news himself – at least that's how I read it. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 12

[edit]

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

MESSEDROCKER (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned, disputed. - Amgine | talk en.WN 23:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amgine, I think you should clearly articulate what was wrong with this article before deleting it. I never bought your objection and your guy appears to have never returnned to fix it. NPOV tags should ideally never lead to articles not progressing. Notnews tags can do that, but its bad news if NPOV tags do. Nyarlathotep 10:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 11

[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 (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CopyvioOriginal tag added by other user, added here for them.Flying Canuck 00:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. that was me. I totally forgot to list it here. sorry. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:11, 12 January 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.

MESSEDROCKER (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess, please put this article out of its misery before the enthusiastic but misguided author finds any more templates/tags. Brian McNeil / talk 20:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I speedy deleted it, as I've never see so many templates before, feel free to undelete if you think it should follow ordinary process. Nyarlathotep 11:58, 12 January 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 (talk) 04:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not news Jacques Divol 11:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree, not news. Is it worth trying to merge with w:Clinton Fein though? Frankie Roberto 11:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cut & past to talk page of wikipedia article, let people who are familiar with the wikipedia article descide if its worth merging. BTW, "Who would Jesus torture?" would have been news in November 2005. If they exibit is ongoing & we havn't covered it, and something interesting is happening, we could have a story on it. But this merely makes the last paragraph a background blurb in a whole other story. We could also run a story if their is any original reporting, like somebbody going to the exhibit and chatting with views, but no such activities are described. Nyarlathotep 15:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • done.

January 10

[edit]

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

This is our "friend" at 216.220.231.226, another two or three sentences, a liberal garnishing of tags, and the hope that regular contributors will finish off something that was probably observed on TV. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • A nice, hearty Delete is in order for this less than stellar performance. Contains nothing note-worthy or salavageable. Although its brief, I must admit there is a hint of NPOV that seems to have been maintained. But deletion is inevitable. Mosigma 10:22, 12 January 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.


Deem abandoned based upon edit history of 216.220.231.226. Nyarlathotep 22:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this particular IP address needs to see a few of his contributions subjected to deletion rather than major work by regular contributors. In the wiki-equivalent of adding <BLINK> tags, this user will tag a two or three sentence article he's written until you want to slap Extreme templating on it and get it listed here. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or extreme rewrite. The article cited has four short sentences, almost no part of which is reproduced in the wikinews article. The rest is pure gibberish. --Cromwellt 22:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -Edbrown05 22:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 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.

MESSEDROCKER (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it speedy? Nyarlathotep 18:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Speedy deleted. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 22:48, 9 January 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 (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{copyvio}}, but edited a tiny bit from the source version. Brian McNeil / talk 15:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What actually is our strategy/policy on copyvios? Do we tag them and let them hang around for a little bit waiting for someone to fix them? Or should admins delete them on sight? Nyarlathotep 18:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Depends how you interpt the rules (: . I beleive you can delete on site if its a dirrect copy+paste, but normmally you should tag, and put them here for three days. Bawolff ☺☻ 18:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It really depends on you interpret the rules. WN:SD says you can delete on sight, while {{copyvio}} says you should list here. I personally just tag them, leave {{copyvio_sas}} on the talk of the poster and then delete after 24h or so. --Deprifry|+T+ 18:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The key thing I've seen done when they've been brought here is that the current version of the page is left with no content other than the {{copyvio}} template. That makes sense as there is no blatant violation of copyright and people can review what is disputed in the edit history. As we have a process, and lots of examples of it being followed, I think we're legally safe. As to delete-on-sight, I believe that should be restricted to the really flagrant cases like ones with a (c) from somewhere else at the bottom. Brian McNeil / talk 18:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I delete on sight unless there is some chance it is not a copyvio such as a cop of a blog post --Cspurrier 19:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The best way any copyvio could be resolved would be for someone to rewrite the article on the temp page referenced in the copyvio template. When the temp page is alright, the page is moved to the main article title and all revisions of the article with a copyright violation are deleted. --Chiacomo (talk) 04:12, 11 January 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 (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not wikified, need cleanup, event past it's prime. --TUFKAAP 04:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

MESSEDROCKER (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost, abandoned article in development. - Amgine | talk en.WN 21:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Speedy delete It's from July....... --TUFKAAP 23:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Ditto of TUFKAAP. --Cromwellt 23:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe this is a candidate for {{delete}}, and I don't think we should be in such a hurry to get rid of something this old. Normal Delete will do. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree with Brianmc, such articles were believed to be completed by their primary contributor, and were only tagged after the primary contributor had lost interest in the site. They highlight the flaw with our current approach to tagging articles; instead of just fixing them. But, of course, here you can see why no one else but the original contributor cared, and why the article became abandoned. Such areticles where my original reason for suggesting that NPOV not take an article out of publication, which was a conversation wwe had a while back, and no body really cares about since their arn't soo many such articles, but still... Nyarlathotep 15:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 2

[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 (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has been listed as a dupe and I don't think there's anything left in it that isn't in the main article that's up as Second Lead. It also has a terminal case of tag-itis with {{dupe}}{{stub}}{{expand}}{{sources}} and {{merge}}. I think it needs put out of its misery. Brian McNeil / talk 22:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It Clearly needs more templates so I added one. Can you spot it? Bawolff ☺☻ 23:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
:-) Brian McNeil / talk 16:35, 3 January 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 (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks advertismenty and i can bearly understand it. I don't beleive its news. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Delete doesn't even make sense. --MateoP 18:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is delete 10-6. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've extended the DR for an additional day so that more consensus can be attained. This deletion request will expire 24 hours after my datemark.MESSEDROCKER (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a damn ad. Imroy 16:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I say keep it. Looks like the anouncement of something that should actually be interesting to people. 22:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC) (preceding unsigned comment made by 68.170.139.100)

Keep - website announcement in the spirit of the million-dollar-web-site article 10:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC) Drudge

Keep - News about websites is good. If it looks like an ad, edit to make more NPOV. --MateoP 18:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added NPOV paragraph - check it out now please. 18:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete , unless you can make significant changes (which I don't think is possible with the information there) Its diffenitly an add. however I'll wait until you're done editing it (good luck☺) 20:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep - Ad - NPOV Brian New Zealand 00:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would also say keep. A new Web site, especially on an interesting topic, can definitely be considered news. -tshiran 1:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - I did not plan to vote, as I don't usually vote, but this is becoming rediculous. This an ad. It should be deleted. It seems that several individuals have recently registered with the sole purpose of manipulating this deletion process and I would encourage the closer to consider this. --Chiacomo (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I said nothing on this one because I did some copyedit, but The Times has just picked up a press release by this company and done minimal work to turn in into an "article", and I use that term losely. Brian McNeil / talk 22:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Say what? You've contributed to nothing other than that article and this deletion request, and you're now saying something that doesn't make sense. The Times article is from December, nobody has seen the PR and if it comes three months after we'll see it in March. You're just backing up Chiacomo's comments about accounts being created to support this article which I have – once again – removed the link to the website from as that is promotion I don't feel is in line with NPOV. Brian McNeil / talk 22:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Brian - please cool down. I really take no issue if you take this one down or whatever but please speak to the point (NPOV). Just to be clear, I did some googling and the Times piece is from early Nov. while the company PR is from a few days ago. Your humble wikimate... Drudge 22:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Silly me for trusting the date on the Wikinews article. I suspect had it had that November date on it when it first came up on DR it would have had less support. Brian McNeil / talk 23:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is remaining deleted due to lack of evidence confirming the article's assertion. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.

MESSEDROCKER (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

REASON - its a valid article. (Unsigned by user:Peruano)

If you can find a source I'll undelete it for you. Currently it looks a lot like a hoax. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Morales_Berm%C3%BAdez
The Wikipedia article might be vandalised. However, I can't find any sources to verify this story. That is why it should not be undeleted. --SonicR 22:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I too have Googled for sources with no success. Is there perhaps some news source in Spanish that could be run through an online translator to confirm the facts of the story? Did you read it in an online source Peruano? Brian McNeil / talk 22:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From the 'pedia article "Date of Death: –". It says hes still living when I looked at it. In fact that edit that said he died lasted for a total of 2 minutes. was by w:user:Marmaduque Who only has five edits. Slightly suspesious. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am subscribed to a Peruvian electronic newsletter: LAS NOTICIAS DE LA TARDE POR EMAIL. THeir edition for January 2 reads:

(removed by Tomos)


Can anyone confirm the validity of that? Could you perhaps forward the email to me? (I'm not sure that would help or not, as a forwarded email could be forged to, but it would help a bit) (Sorry to sound so suspecious, but if this happened, I think google would be saying more)Bawolff ☺☻ 00:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sure would sent it to you, but please let me ask you this: how would that help? I already posted the whole article here. If you really want me to sent it 2 you, give me your email and I'll send it to you tomorrow. Peruano 00:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
mailto:*****ProtectFromSpamBots###[email protected] . Don't just copy and paste, but actually forward it. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks legit.however I probaly couldn't tell a fake from a real one. Its just so suspecious that google knows nothing. Bawolff ☺☻ 08:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S heres translated version via google translate:

(removed by Tomos)

Bawolff ☺☻ 00:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a better translations for English speakers:

Afternoon News by e-mail

(removed by Tomos)


I can confirm that the newsletter is legitimate. I receive the same newsletter. Marmaduque 15:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • It wasn't. I don't know why there has been no response, but that's not my fault. Boy, you DO treat new users pretty bad.
  • I did a bit of research on this. English Wikipedia's edit by User:Marmaduque was reverted by an IP anon. Spanish Wikipedia does not report any. LexisNexis' news search of Americas' news with "Peruvian President" returns only the stories on Fujimori for the last 10 days or so. So I doubt the accuracy of this newsletter. If this is indeed somewhat important issue, I propose we ask es. wikinewsies& wikipedians for more information. Tomos 17:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Besides, I think I am not sure about the appropriateness of posting someone's writing in its entirety (& with full translation) here under a CC license. So I removed the texts from this page. I think they should be deleted from the archive as well. Tomos 17:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 1

[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 (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Appears to be an article without a necessary time of publish. Can come back to it later. --MateoP 05:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not because its abbanodoned, but because I think its vanity. In all honesty I don't think what happened in that resturant is intereasting. It not like its a finger. I'm sure this must happen all the time in different restaurants. It was a clean glove, big deal. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't expect to find a story like this in my local newspaper. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really, I see quirky stories like this in my local paper all the time. I have worked on the article some, adding a statement from the owner that another reporter talked to. Makes it more NPOV. Still not ready though. Let's give it some time. --MateoP 05:22, 2 January 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.

MESSEDROCKER (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

December 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 (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned article (blanked by anon ip, possibly the original contributor?) - Amgine | talk en.WN 22:20, 31 December 2005 (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.

MESSEDROCKER (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

REASON -- Unimportant sub-press release of a non-notable band. 81.178.126.31 11:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • ARGUMENTS -

December 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 (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned. - Amgine | talk en.WN 23:16, 30 December 2005 (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 (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned disputed article. - Amgine | talk en.WN 20:15, 30 December 2005 (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 (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned disputed article. - Amgine | talk en.WN 20:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 28

[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 (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete Brian New Zealand 21:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete Tomos 17:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete Event no longer notable --TUFKAAP 17:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 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 (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 05:11, 27 December 2005 (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 (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 05:11, 27 December 2005 (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 (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 05:11, 27 December 2005 (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 (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 05:11, 27 December 2005 (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 (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 05:11, 27 December 2005 (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 (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 05:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 20

[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 (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Half completed infobox, that was never used and has a brother that is used called template:APEC2005. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:07, 22 December 2005 (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 (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned, disputed - Amgine | talk en.WN 19:01, 20 December 2005 (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 (talk) 14:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone's rant. Imroy 08:26, 20 December 2005 (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.

--Deprifry|+T+ 18:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 17:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC) Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is Delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.[reply]

--Deprifry|+T+ 18:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 17:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC) Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is Delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.[reply]

--Deprifry|+T+ 18:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 17:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC) Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is Delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.[reply]

--Deprifry|+T+ 18:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 17:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC) Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is Delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.[reply]

--Deprifry|+T+ 18:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 17:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC) Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is Delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.[reply]

--Deprifry|+T+ 18:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 17:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC) Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is Delete. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request.[reply]

--Deprifry|+T+ 18:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 16

[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 (talk) 05:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio Bawolff ☺☻ 12:03, 16 December 2005 (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.

MESSEDROCKER (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Listed for speedy, don't belive it meets speedy. Bawolff ☺☻ 10:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 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.

MESSEDROCKER (talk) 05:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Highly npov, editorial, unformatted, claims to be original but no notes provided, edits by admin, but only one edit by original contributor.-- TUFKAAP 03:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you mean highly POV? —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 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 (talk) 05:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 13 December 2005 (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 (talk) 05:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned, disputed article - Amgine | talk 23:03, 13 December 2005 (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 (talk) 05:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned, minimal (tagged 12/12 Nyarlathotep) - Amgine | talk 22:47, 13 December 2005 (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 (talk) 05:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned - Amgine | talk 22:45, 13 December 2005 (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 (talk) 05:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned - Amgine | talk 20:52, 13 December 2005 (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 (talk) 05:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned--Cspurrier 21:00, 13 December 2005 (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 (talk) 05:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned--Cspurrier 21:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 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.

MESSEDROCKER (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Makin' copyyyyyyyy...vio. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 04:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 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.

--Deprifry|+T+ 13:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion piece on the Sahel with no factual news content -- 25 13:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]