Jump to content

Wikinews:Deletion requests/Archives/Passed Archive 5

Add links
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.

April 29

[edit]

Bill passed by Mexican legislature legalizes possession of small amounts of drugs

[edit]

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

—THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 11:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged with the main published artilce Andresv 14:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Prepared stories/Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon dies

[edit]

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 MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 11:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As was mentioned on this article's talk page by someone else a premature obituary is not in very good taste. Mr.Sharon is still very much alive-and this article seems to seal his fate. One can only imagine how Mr.Sharon's family-members or well-wishers may feel if they (by some chance) were to come across such an article.PVJ 18:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI real news stations have prepared obituaries on many famous people. Nyarlathotep 18:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. <cynicism> Well, at some time he will die </cynicism> and as Nyarlathotep pointed out all professional news organisations have pre-written obituaries and so should we. --Deprifry|+T+ 18:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's not a matter of taste: it's a matter of being prepared. As the page and area of Wikinews it's in states, this ain't for real. Yet. It's quite obviously prepared in case he does die, then we're ready. And he will have to die at some point. :) —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 18:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is standard news practice. We just have to ensure that these "preparednesses" don't get released before their time. Aloha, KeithH (talk) 05:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - however we may need to try harded to make it clear that the events have not occurred - remember any reader can view them, and they appear in Google searches. - Borofkin 06:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - preparing obits is standard practise. We might want to consider leaving a blank space for the first line (Ariel Sharon, former Prime Minister of Israel, has died after suffering a massive stroke in January. Sharon was 78.) though, as this is the bit that we can't quite predict - most of the obit preperation work is to make sure we have the background blurb below. Frankie Roberto 11:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frankie Roberto's solution solves all problems, just leave some blank words, sentences, or paragraphs around the beginning. Nyarlathotep 13:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 25

[edit]

US Federal Reserve ceases to publish M3 index

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is no consensus. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request. 

—THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 20:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned -- no edits since April 11. --Chiacomo (talk) 05:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep (at least for now)Thats too bad, I found that extremly intreasting. Will try and work on it, but I know absolutly nothing about the subject, so I might not be to useful, but i'll try. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this news is extremely important! user:sgodth

April 22

[edit]

Russian bombers flew undetected across Arctic - AF commander

[edit]

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 MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 22:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio, may be re-written. KeithH 19:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC) Was re-written and redirected to Russian commander: Tu-160s penetrate US airspace undetected and published. I vote to:[reply]

April 15

[edit]
[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is no consensus. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request. 

—THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 19:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not in use system from May 2005. Template:Coor, Template:Geolinks-US-hoodscale, Template:Geolinks-start, Template:Geolinks-US-streetscale - Amgine | talk en.WN 04:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They're not used currently, but they might be in the future, and I see no harm in them. Bawolff ☺☻ 16:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Amgine, thanks for running it through WN:DR.  :) Nyarlathotep 19:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geoportal template system

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is no consensus. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request. 

—THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 19:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Geoportal template scheme is not in use, nor have I found an example page. This concept would likely be useful, but has been abandoned since summer 2005. Template:Geo-portal, Template:Geo-portal-lead, Template:Geo-portal-sub, Template:Geo-portal-talk - Amgine | talk en.WN 04:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI know a fair number of portals that use them. They were all subst: . I don't see what harm keeping them would do. Bawolff ☺☻ 16:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that only includes Geo-portal. I find it a bit over the top for most things, but many people use it. The other geo-portals can go, as they're quite useless. Bawolff ☺☻ 16:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 April

[edit]

Car hits 14-year-old boy

[edit]

Tagged as unsourced, actually unsourceable as no specifics given. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Man charged with child endangerment after trying to feed his children feces

[edit]

Failed to be confirmed, no sources, tagged as misleading. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thaksin stands down for national unity

[edit]

Superceded/merged into Thailand's Prime Minister announces resignation --Brian McNeil / talk 15:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Official: Don't Buy U.S. Bonds

[edit]

3 April

[edit]

Portal:Sports/Major League Baseball

[edit]

According to Category:Duplicate article, you should add all information from one duped article to another and then list it for deletion. If you take a look at Portal:Baseball, it has everything from the portal listed for deletion above. Thus, I nominate that portal for deletion. ReporterFromAfar3136 20:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept as redirect, 1-1 - Amgine | talk en.WN 06:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 April

[edit]

Wikinews:Mediation alerts

[edit]

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

—MESSEDROCKER (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this page for deletion on the basis that I was being bold, and I'd like to see whether the page will stand up to a deletion request. It's certainly not a new idea, but a different way of going about it. Have at it. irid:t 00:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd say it can be done; it falls foul of the guidelines that it may not contain any valuable content. Also, the deletion guidelines don't seem to take into account pages outside of the article namespace. So it's difficult to say. However, I'd like to get the opinions of those who are actively involved. If they disagree, then it should be deleted; we don't need more cruft around here. :) irid:t 01:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just what are you up to Ironiridis? Are you trying to set precedent for some future move? Is this a step towards something else? --Sfullenwider 01:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sumthin' sneaky. ;) Actually, I want to obliterate personal disputes from WN:ALERT. I'm tired of it. I'm happy to help people reach agreements and work together, but WN:ALERT is for vandalized pages. It's not for somebody getting a snippy message on their talk page. I feel for everyone who thinks they've been personally attacked or whatever, but these things don't need admins; what they need is people paying attention. Does anybody use WN:DISPUTE anymore? irid:t 01:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think WN:DISPUTE is kind of what you're going for -- may be also similar to W:WP:RFC, no? --Chiacomo (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is, and it isn't. My justification is that WN:DISPUTE has mostly died, and doesn't really have the accesability that WN:ALERT does. I wanted to try a different approach because people seem so comfortable with just throwing something on Admin alerts like that. I've created some templates that make the page even more accessable. However, I didn't want to make those same changes to WN:DISPUTE because it encompasses every part of the resolution process: talk pages, WN:TEA, etc. I wanted something more focused. But, some may disagree with me, hence my listing it on DR. ;) irid:t 02:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem, as I see it, is that editors expect administrators to make subjective judgements concerning NPOV, facts, etc and block or protect based on that judgement. This is entirely inappropriate, of course. Administrators should not use these tools to enforce an editorial opinion. Where does WN:DISPUTE fit into WN:MA? The dispute resolutions steps on DISPUTE are sound, I think. WN:MA should link to DISPUTE on some level, don't you think? For the record, in my opinion, anything which encourages editors to work out their differences rather than argue over blame and fault is an excellent step forward. --Chiacomo (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's the other way around; WN:DISPUTE is linking to WN:MA. In other words, requesting community mediation is a step in the process of dispute resolution. irid:t 02:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 1

[edit]

Wikinews interviews Frugalware Linux founder

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is no consensus. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request. 

—MESSEDROCKER (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I was being uncharitable I'd call this spam. But I do think it's not enough of news article and too much of an advert. Dan100 (Talk) 20:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does need more work - and I've made suggestions on how to improve it in the talk section of the story (where your complaints should go before you delete it). Karen 21:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do Not Delete this article yet. It took considerable time to develop and I am doing this through a relationship with people, as opposed to just collecting old news from "sources" littered through google already. --Chris Bradley 21:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have a content guide, you need to justify the story under it's terms. Also, please don't remove a deletion request notice before it's time us up. Dan100 (Talk) 12:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this article never needed charity to deserve to escape being called "spam." (Remember the essence of Spam and spam: you find them everywhere.) Apparently several of the original objections no longer apply. I have changed the headline to make it satisfy guidelines and no longer seem promotional ("Frugalware Linux Pushes Forward"). (I am not the article's originator and have no connection with nor prior knowledge of Frugalware.) As it has been improved, it is still imperfect but contains interesting news. Similar interviews related to other Linux distributions could only be welcome.
—67.21.48.122 14:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

30 March

[edit]

[edit]

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

—MESSEDROCKER (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be deleted to make way for the trans-commonsed version. commons:Image:WN briefs 200507012130.ogg. ReporterFromAfar3136 00:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, fine, but can't you just upload over this file and/or rename? I'm sure I've done that before myself. But, yes, deletion is fine if your uploading another copy here. Nyarlathotep 10:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

—MESSEDROCKER (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be deleted to make way for the trans-commonsed version. commons:Image:Jan29 news brief.ogg. ReporterFromAfar3136 00:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

—MESSEDROCKER (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be deleted to make way for the trans-commonsed version. commons:Image:Wikinewbrief-01-03-06-0200utc.ogg. ReporterFromAfar3136 00:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 25

[edit]

Swedish snowboarder dies during practice run

[edit]

Abandoned. - Amgine | talk en.WN 04:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, admins need to fix the article if it'll only take a minute, just tagging is wasteful. --Sfullenwider 05:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Landmine kills two in India

[edit]

Abandoned. - Amgine | talk en.WN 04:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Publish. - looks okay to me --Meanmeancoffeebean 11:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC) Has since been published - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 11:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


March 24

[edit]

Bush declares immunity from Patriot Act oversight

[edit]

Many days old news. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:24, 24 March 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. 

--04:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

March 23

[edit]

United Kingdom hit by snow storms

[edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is keep. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request. -Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 21:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 01:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

20 March

[edit]

Utah father accused of using shock-collars to punish his children

[edit]

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

--Chiacomo  (talk) 04:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is extremely libelous,imo, at least until after he is charged; then a new article can address the charges if you like but this article has nothing of value in it at all. Very national enquireish,I think.

Delete. Neutralizer 13:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. User says IMO which is his POV. No actionable objections. Article is very clear and lists sources properly. I have also noted this article on WN:ALERT for admin review. Jason Safoutin 13:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, fyi, imo is simply my attempt at being polite. Neutralizer 14:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does not meet the legal definition of libel nor any other deletion guideline --Cspurrier 15:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how this article is any different from other articles about accused criminals. If those are off limits and eligible for deletion, I think we have a problem. irid:t 15:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, problems addressed. -- IlyaHaykinson 16:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is completely clear as an article about someone accused of a crime, don't see any issue. 67.171.75.30 17:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC) - please excuse me, that vote was from me. Getting back into the swing of things, I keep on forgetting to log in. Lyellin 17:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It may or may not be libelous, but this can always be solved by eliminating his name. Just debate eliminating his name on the article's talk page if your worried about it. I don't think his name should be eliminated, IMHO. Nyarlathotep 16:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this one's been closed as a keep & its now published, not sure where the pretty little bar template is though. Nyarlathotep 16:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 19

[edit]

UNC Student Plows into--Claims to be doing the work of Allah

[edit]

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

—MESSEDROCKER (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned, almost complete. - Amgine | talk en.WN 08:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as requested - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 20:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looted, possibly contaminated body parts transplanted into USA, Canadian patients

[edit]

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

—MESSEDROCKER (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned - Amgine | talk en.WN 07:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 16

[edit]

Babel userbox templates (undeletion request)

[edit]

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

—MESSEDROCKER (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The babel userbox templates, my March 13th undeletions listed here, should be undeleted as they clearly support the site's mission, by allowing users to find users who understand specific langauges, and we must be able to use foreign langauge sources. Nyarlathotep 23:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Its also wise to import the whole babel system, including wikipedia's instructions for using it, but this is not a matter for WN:DR. AFAIK, the templates listed here are more-or-less those being used by users of this site, as each was added manually.
  • Oppose 32 of 53 templates were in use (60%), and each could easily be replaced by a non-category/non-template Babel system. The Babel system has never been used to support Wikinews, and has never been shown to actually be used on any Wikimedia site other than Meta. There are ongoing efforts to develop policy and process, as well as an ArbCom decision, related to these templates which should be allowed to come to fruition first. - Amgine | talk en.WN 23:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about commons? Bawolff ☺☻ 23:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I just posted it once it occured to me that its what I should have done in the first place. I don't mind if people want to place it on hold. Nyarlathotep 03:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11 March

[edit]

Category:Local only

[edit]

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

- Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 21:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All published articles should belong on the front page. No matter where or what they might concern. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 22:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

commentAmgine just changed a "local only" category on the Buffalo story to the new category he just created;"local news"; so it seems as if the decision has already been made by Amgine. Therefore, further discussion seems fruitless. I must ask Amgine "why? what's the reasoning if there is any?" Is there some practical or technical effect of the name change? Neutralizer 06:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment "Local only" is not a news category, while "Local news" could be. You changed the category which someone else had listed, yet was a valid news category name. I merely created the category and reverted your change.
Amgine when you "moved" the category; you neglected to include this statement at the top of the "Local news" category which is at the top of the "local only" category; "Articles listed as "Local only" may be excluded from the front page in the future"..was this omission by intent and if so, it was not very honest to pretend you were only doing a name change; at least it seems to me. Neutralizer 06:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't move the category. I created one from the redlink. I wasn't aware of what was in the other category, so I didn't know that I was omitting anything. I would also suggest that if the consensus is to move the previous category that my simple text be deleted and the other moved into its place; it hasn't enough edit history to be worth keeping. - Amgine | talk en.WN 06:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to "Local news", as above. It's useful, as otherwise articles like Events cancelled at Humber due to college strike appear on the main page. Most of the local articles should appear on the front page, just not that, or an article I wrote on an MPP's community barbecque coming up. -- user:zanimum
Do they not appear on the main page anyway. I have marked things as "Local Only" and they still appear on the main page.

4 March

[edit]

Category:Nuclear proliferation

[edit]

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

—MESSEDROCKER (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category does not meet the NPOV requirment- It has perspective, different people can make what they think of it. Also based on the recent deletion of Category:Terrorism (whick I disagreed with) It has set a precedent, ‘If that goes, all cats that have a POV will have to go’ its only fair. This will not be the last cat I will nom based on this. All cats with a POV should goBrian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 01:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that was my main POV thoughts on it, It can't be POV if the country has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it as been used in the past in countries that have not signed- and that is POV Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 03:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
POV has been showed when it is used on countries that have NOT signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 21:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm wondering if there's a bit of making a point in this. There are certainly some articles where there should be discussion about removing this category. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What is the point of this category when it is only applied to non-proliferation treaty signatories? It cannot cover North Korea, India, Pakistan or Israel. Nor any other contry once they develop the bomb as they will most likely withdraw from the treaty just before testing it (as North Korea did). Yes, applying the category only to countries that signed the treaty might make it "objective", but it also renders it useless at best, but in practice actually misleading. Either the category should apply to all reports dealing with nuclear proliferation (a judgement call that needs to be made even if one restricts oneself to signatories), or it should go altogether (as the treaty is pretty much worthless right now anyway. The US and France have announced that they consider using nuclear weapons against signatories that don't have the bomb and the US is giving civilian nuclear technology to India, a tratment usually reserved for signtories as the "carrot" to sign.) --vonbergm 06:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, it should be a reasoned decision. I think very few here would argue against tagging an article about a test detonation in Iran, but the criteria we're laying out in this DR would disallow that. I haven't voted yet, but I'd tend towards keep provided disputes over whether or not an article merits the category could be kept independent of the {{publish}} tag. To start with, someone needs to go through the articles in the category and list them on WN:ALERT where the category has been inappropriately added. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEPI think this campaign against categories needs more discussion. More than 3 days anyway. I keep realising that yet another category, and only by remembering to check this Deletion page, is becoming extinct because someone has a bee in their bonnet about categories. Personally I fully believe that Categories will be vital when it comes to archiving, searching and referencing articles over the years to come. We find this with the Indymedia project too... As I said about the Terrorism category (unfortunately belatedly - and I do propose to bring it back because I was quite offended when that one disappeared), ALL HUMAN EFFORTS ARE POV. We can try hard to seek NPOV, but I fear the simple deletion of the unfavourite-categories-of-the-week will no achive it. Please keep this category. As a prolific wikinews contributor, I will be certainly be adding a few more categories as time goes by... But thats just my lil rant. Respecta --elliot_k 18:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 March

[edit]

Template:Discussions

[edit]

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

—MESSEDROCKER (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorses external websites, drives traffic away from Wikinews. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 17:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The problem, however, is that there was no proposal, and it was enacted on a few articles already (without discussion on it's proper use to the community). --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then I suggest removing it from these pages, and adding something like Template:Disputed template to the template itself.--Eloquence 00:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- *Keep I don't have a problem with it at the moment. - Borofkin 04:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC) - *Keep But do not use in articles --Cspurrier 15:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC) - *Keep. There was plenty of discussion on the water cooler. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 6

[edit]

Murdoch's News Corp. ends automated censorship of MySpace

[edit]

Article became unabandoned and therefore was no longer eligible for deletion Abandoned - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 00:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, AISoT has fixed it. Nyarlathotep 23:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Listing this article here appears to have been the saving of it. The article has been extensively rewritten, additional sources. It may be publishable, but needs other editors to look at it for possible bias? - Amgine | talk en.WN 05:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 2

[edit]

Biz Jet crashes in California

[edit]

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

—MESSEDROCKER (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete abandoned, is news, can be expanded, but it is old. Jason Safoutin 12:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 31

[edit]

Alito confirmed to Supreme Court

[edit]

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

—MESSEDROCKER (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson shops in women's clothes

[edit]

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

—MESSEDROCKER (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned, copyvio - Amgine | talk en.WN 17:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Deletion_requests/Archives/Passed_Archive_5&oldid=481593"