text:
Wikinews:Deletion requests/Archives/The rest of 2007

This is an unorthodox archive that is meant to serve as a transition for what I hope will become the new way of archiving Deletion Requests --SVTCobra 01:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Home
This was originally intended to be the actual coding for Main Page with a large notice (commented out) informing users that "this is not the page you want to edit". It was reverted by community consensus if I remember correctly. Thunderhead - (talk - email - contributions) 02:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thunderhead - (talk - email - contributions) 02:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Delete (or redir) — I have no memory of that, but i can't imagine any use for this that couldn't be accomplished with . Bawolff ☺☻ 03:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Preview of sex tape starring former 'American Idol' finalist Jessica Sierra is released
The user who created this article already created two articles on this before. Why do we need so many? Also, this is tabloid news. He also created an article about something related (see contribs.) This could be part of a crusade to put this type of news on Wikinews. Just my opinion.  —Fellow Wiki  Newsie 14:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC) ...just to be a contrarian! I think we've seen similar articles (the Dominatrix series with graphic photos comes to mind). This doesn't seem so bad and is based on a news item (worthy or not is debatable), but it is news to someone. Jcart1534 14:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikinews is not an advertisement site for the release of a pornographic video. This is utter garbage. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I had intended to follow Jessica's story; my other article was just a bit of a laugh. But if it's not wanted, then very well. I know on Wikipedia if the author requests deletion it can be immediatly removed; if this is the case here, then let's not prolong this, it can be deleted. I may come back for one or two other things, but I won't continue to follow Sierra, if that is the wish of people here. Sorry if I have inconvinienced you, let's end this here. Spare Wheel 14:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Story preparation/Leeds, England rented student accomodation investigation.
It seems that Story Preps don't qualify for WN:PROD, so I am nominating it here. I have notified the three users that worked on it, so that they can disagree if they think the investigation will yield anything. --SVTCobra 23:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Votes

 * per own nom. --SVTCobra 23:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Snow LondonChurch 08 02 07.jpg, Image:London snow 08 02 07.jpg, Image:Essex snow 08 02 07.jpg
All three Flickr images are not freely licensed and their use cannot be claimed as fair use; it would be possible to find or create a freely licensed image, and as such I propose they be deleted. Adambro 14:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

 * meh delete away i cant be bothered to go back to ask them to change their licenses, weve already got a free image (Image:Birmingham snow 02 08 07.jpg) that can be used instead and the dr images are only used once. however i would like to know how you are going to "create a freely licensed image" from the past... --Mark Talk to me 17:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * At the point in time at which this was first used in an article it would be perfectly feasible to create a freely licensed image. Adambro 18:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I object to any image being substituted in place of those deleted. -- Brianmc 18:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In this case there is already a freely licensed image in the article so this proposed deletion would not leave the article without any images. Adambro 18:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Votes

 * - the image Image:Birmingham snow 02 08 07.jpg that Markie mentions is already in the article and will have to be the lone picture to illustrate this story Snow causes disruption in UK. --SVTCobra 21:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * unfree images, keep Birmingham image.  —Fellow Wiki  Newsie 00:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:New religious movements
Encyclopedic category. We already have Category:Religion. We should keep categorisation simple, not put articles into five different categories which really mean the same thing.  —Fellow Wiki  Newsie 17:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Votes
{{{closed-dr-footer}}
 * move the existing sub-cats into Category:Religion. It seems to me to be an arbitrary line, what constitutes a new vs. old religion. --SVTCobra 00:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.jpg
I do not want this deleted. I had to restore it to see why it was deleted, as I forgot why I deleted it to begin with. It claims to be from a Department of Defense video, but yet has no source. I figured I would put this up for proper DR to allow the time to find a source, or replacement. Currently there are about 5 articles with this image...archived ones. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

 * Have you asked TUFKAAP where he got the image? Also, the fair-use-rationale needs to be improved because while the DoD may have released it, I don't think they own the copyright. Al-Qaeda in Iraq probably owns it. Contacting them might be tricky. --SVTCobra 18:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that might be slightly tricky. On a serious note, if we have/find the source, this sounds fair use to me. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I asked TUFKAAP if he remembers where he found it. --SVTCobra 00:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure it was a DOD video and if it was taken by Al-Qaeda in Iraq, who cares, I highly doubt that enforcing copyright on a video of their martyred leader is exactly the biggest priority on their list. Actually, here's a copy of it right here. http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2006/05/04/roberts.zarqawi.mxf.cnn --TUFKAAP 21:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Votes
{{{closed-dr-footer}}
 * Kinda ruins the fact of showing you're a terrorist group if you're gonna claim copyright on your statement videos. --TUFKAAP 07:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But the fair-use statement needs to be improved/bolstered. --SVTCobra 01:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Story preparation/Cuban president Castro in serious condition
This story prep has outlived its usefulness, too much of it is already out-of-date. If some change to Fidel Castro's health were to occur, it would be easier to start fresh. --SVTCobra 00:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Votes

 * as per own nom. --SVTCobra 00:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Since this is Story Prep, this page may save some time if such news does emerge in the future. Could outdated or time-sensitive material be rewritten or restructured in the meantime? DL+1613 17:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * . The Castro dies one is more complete. This illness one could start fresh. Jcart1534 02:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't even notice that there was a separate obit/prep. That, imo, further supports the DR for this prep. --SVTCobra 03:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:SpecialPublish & Template:SpecialDevelop
It's not clear to me what these are supposed to be for. The talk page for SpecialPublish references the nopublish category, which I don't believe we use anymore. If it breaks the quaker portal to delete it, we can fix it. "Special Publish" doesn't make sense in our current publishing paradigm. Thoughts?

Votes

 * Delete I almost did this a while back, but never got around to it. I support the idea, as long as the quakers portal stays intact. —Zachary talk 18:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete if these are for Quakers, rename to QuakerPublish, and put it in a category excluded from the main page. The name is misleading, VERY hard to understand, and most likely very confusing for new users. TheFearow 22:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * rename (but if you do make sure you get all the dpls that use this) or keep Although this is no longer a part of wikinews, it was historically used by the quaker editors, and i believe we should save all the historical processes on wikinews. It was renamed in the past, but that screwed up a lot of DPL's, so it got named back to specialpub. If someone wants to find all the dpl's that use it (special:search does not work, nor does what links here), I'm not opposed to the renaming. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there any chance we can move on this? It has been an open DR for a while now. I have abstained since I am not familiar with the Quakers and what should or should not be preserved for posterity's sake. --SVTCobra 02:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No idea what these are for! Jcart1534 02:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

UEFA Champions League round-up: September 19, 2007
News from September, added very recently.
 * Delete As nom. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * as old news. Adambro 22:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * --Jcart1534 22:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 *  —Fellow Wiki  Newsie 22:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Former Chief Operating Officer of Wikimedia Foundation is convicted felon
The Register is to hardly be considered a reliable or noteworthy source, especially in terms of WMF. All this article does is pile rumors and libel onto something that's unverifiable. There has been no noteworty media coverage outside of the tabloids to warrant a reliable, trustworthy article. At present, this article is full of slander and unreliable nonsense. Just because someone says something doesn't make it true or notable. We don't need to set a bad example for all to see. -- Pilotguy roger that  18:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

 * "Libel" is an accusation of a crime, buddy. Be sure you're thinking before you're talking. 71.172.26.174 19:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I crossed my t's and dotted my i's, but thanks. Buddy. TheCustomOfLife 01:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Votes

 * Because one, it is sourced. Two: credit and claims are given to the rgister. Three: this has been published for over 8 hours now. Just because you do not trust a certain site, does not make it an actionable deletion request. I see nothing here to warrant a deletion. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree, and WTF, how is this article wrong! She is a criminal. The records are in the sources section. Is that not enough proof for you? Here's one This deletion request is to cover this up so people cannot see it. We are a public site, and I'm not afraid of people hearing about this stuff, journalists are supposed to uncover stories and report them to the public. We should not be secretive and put this stuff under the rug. Also, as DF said, this article has been published for a while now.  —Fellow Wiki  Newsie 19:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Per above. --David Shankbone 19:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The foundation has confirmed that it is the same person and we have the relevant criminal records here to verify. JoshuaZ 19:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Every single thing she's done is sourced. It's not libel when it's true. TheCustomOfLife 19:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * providing the current state of the article where it is made clear that the article is based upon one main source is maintained. Despite this, I feel the deletion request is reasonable and perfectly valid and I'm not going to agree with the nonsense that this is an attempt "cover this up so people cannot see it", nor that the time period this has been publish has anything whatsoever to do with whether this should be deleted. Adambro 19:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The Register is the site with the slogan "biting the hand that feeds IT". I'm not happy giving them any credibility because they've run a crusade against Wiki for a very long time. The entire opening of this article must make clear this is their story, and that any additional information we have is to verify their claims. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * well the register may not be valid by itself, the police records appear to back them up. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Should this be snowballed keep? I see one delete (the nom), 7 keeps (including mine). To me it seems pretty clear what the result will be
 * Since this was only started a few hours ago it is appropriate to let it run for a little while yet so as to ensure that contributors in different timezones are given opportunity to have their say. Adambro
 * That sounds fair. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing personal, but this seems like a kneejerk reaction. EVula // talk// 22:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * lots of other sources are up now. Jussenadv 23:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikinews has confirmed the details and after I read it I didn't have any doubt over the claim. --Nzgabriel | Talk 23:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * the Register seems properly attributed and there seems to be ample evidence for the criminal history. There seems to be no claims that this is a case of mistaken identity. --SVTCobra 00:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * --Jcart1534 00:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * per FellowWikiNews and JoshauZ and others. KTC 01:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This should not be censored because this relates to the Wikimedia Foundation. And, yes, I am Miranda from Wikipedia and have few edits to this project, but am active on other WKM projects. Miranda 02:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Smithville
This a random article that serves no useful purpose, is in no way newsworthy and does not quote reliable sources. This does not even seem to be anywhere near news. This appears to be a clear abuse of Wikinews.

Comments
Comment Here

Votes
add, or

As I said above this appears to break more than one guideline and was written for no reason
 * Speedied, was childish remarks such as mocking fellow shoolkids. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sudoku/2006 and Sudoku/2006/January
Although, these pages have been published for a long time, they are nothing but a bunch of links to a commercial site (which publishes "free" puzzles). Both were created by an anon and seem to serve no informative purpose. --SVTCobra 03:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC) (signed after nom)

Votes

 * as per own nom. --SVTCobra 03:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * . I am glad you put "free" in quotes. It is an advert-driven site. Jcart1534 03:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * --Anonymous101 19:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Greeves (talk • contribs) 02:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Story preparation/New Orleans eyewitnesses which redirects to Portal:Disasters and accidents/Eyewitness accounts/St Bernard Parish
I nominate them both for deletion as they both relate to Hurricane Katrina which was in 2005 and it doesn't seem like any stories can be developed from this material any longer. --SVTCobra 00:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Votes

 * as per own nom. --SVTCobra 00:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Although it is unlikly to be useful, it may be intresting to keep for historical reasons (we tried this at one point, it didn't work...). Bawolff ☺☻ 01:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * IMO it has to be moved out of Story Preparation, at the very least. Maybe some kind of archive needs to be created. --SVTCobra 01:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

 * we should keep these for historical reasons.  —Fellow Wiki  Newsie 01:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Were should we keep them? Certainly not in Story Prep. --SVTCobra 16:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Story prep page, which redirects to the article, should be deleted (not the article).  —Fellow Wiki  Newsie 01:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, so you are saying delete the former (the redirect), but keep the latter where it is (a sub-page of a portal)? --SVTCobra 02:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes.  —Fellow Wiki  Newsie 02:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

 * story prep one. Jcart1534 02:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * portal eyewitness one - maybe just nopublish? Jcart1534 02:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * for historical reasons --Anonymous101 20:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Oral Roberts University
Not useful, part of someone's crusade against the school. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I must be missing something here. We have a lot of articles about Oral Roberts. That the school has been a matter of controversy doesn't strike me a reason to get rid of the category by itself. JoshuaZ 14:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

 * We have categories for other universities and there are nine articles in this one. However, we should keep an eye on these articles and make sure they follow WN:NPOV. See also the previous DR for this category. --SVTCobra 15:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think keeping the category will make it easier to keep an eye on the crusade. --SVTCobra 15:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

 *  —Fellow Wiki  Newsie 21:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Lots of articles and an interesting topic. Matt/TheFearow | userpage|contribs 19:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Jcart1534 02:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * and just keep an eye on the articles. Adambro 12:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Symode09/Amazing true story
This is a chain letter. It is a lie about a movie that was never created. Most importantly, it is a violation of WN:NOT. Also see admin alerts discussion.  —Fellow Wiki  Newsie 20:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete tempted to speedy. Matt/TheFearow | userpage|contribs 20:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Inferior articles
Pointless, only used on one article's talk page.  —Fellow Wiki  Newsie 00:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Delete - absurd categoration of articles. Either they are fit to publish or not. Delete before it spreads (although old). --SVTCobra 00:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * delete - ? is all i can say. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Notability
Notability is not an issue on Wikinews. If it is not spam, or nonsense it should not be an issue. --Cspurrier 16:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to template:notnews. Bawolff ☺☻ 19:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete  —Fellow Wiki  Newsie 15:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - redirecting suggests that notability is a requirement to be news. --SVTCobra 16:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Second Deletion with No Redirect. We've got enough notability problems on Wikipedia without claiming that news has to be notable too. Jigsaw 19:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews:Story preparation/Wikipedia versus the WebComics: Define notability
To new users and comic fans who essentially only have edits to this page: Please bear in mind that just because there is a lot of people who vote keep or delete, does not mean we will necessarily do that. This is not strictly a vote - majority rules thing. We attempt to come to a concencuss about what to do that keeps most users happy. The point of this rant is if you just signed up to vote on this, we will consider other factors then just which side has the most votes to determine are course of action in regards to this article. Bawolff ☺☻ 19:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC) This article may have been started with good intentions but I'm afraid it is of questionable newsworthiness and serves to drag Wikinews into an controversial issue on Wikipedia. The whole thing seems to becoming a means by which individual editors are using Wikinews as a way of expressing how they are disgruntled by Wikipedia policies. Clearly when articles are deleted those who are interested in the topic are going to be displeased. This doesn't merit a Wikinews article to allow them to rant about it.

I doubt this article will ever develop into a well balanced report looking at the issue and even if it does, sooner or later another group are going to complain about their articles being deleted from Wikipedia and we could find ourselves with more articles like this. We need to act now to send a clear message that Wikinews is a separate project from Wikipedia and is not an acceptable place to rant about Wikipedia under the guise of a news article.

We have to treat all articles about the WMF and its projects very carefully and I think this is one we should avoid. If we don't Wikinews is going to be plagued by similar articles and new users who come here to push their own point of view, seriously impacting on our ability to write neutral articles in an environment where the deletion of an article is not immediately declared censorship. We are trying to write news and Wikipedia are trying to write an encyclopedia, both of these projects have to draw the line somewhere, we've got to educate users whose articles fall on the wrong side of this line that there is no conspiracy, simply a decision that the topic doesn't meet the projects guidelines and policies. Adambro 23:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm conflicted about this article. Most of what Adam says above is correct. I do however disagree that we can't write a well-balanced article on this subject- although the talk page of the draft has many arguments, the article itself did have an NPOV version until fairly recently (which I just reverted most of the work to). Difficulty with achieving NPOV is not a reason not to have an article- it is a reason to be very careful. This also is slightly larger than a minor dustup over a small group having their articles deleted. This matter prompted Broken Frontier (which just skirts the realm of being a reliable source) to do an interview with Jimbo and an additional interview with one of the Wikipedia admins in question. So in that regard, this has already gotten coverage elsewhere. Furthermore some mainstream media sources have treated the entire Wikipedia inclusionism/deletionism debate as worthy of coverage(see the recent article about Wikipedia in the New York Times Magazine for example). I don't know precisely where to draw the line about when these sorts of dustups are notable and this one seems to fall into the gray area. JoshuaZ 00:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

 * You could have, at the very least, given it a couple of weeks to see if it would develop into something worthwhile, rather than nominating it for deletion as soon as you saw it just because you dont think it could become something. Regardless of what you think of it, the article is about a valid and very real issue. A lot of good content is being removed from wikipedia, not just comics, simply because notability is poorly defined and overzealously enforced. (This actually just drove me to sign up) --The Grimch 01:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This article should be kept and developed. Its bad enough you're deleting webcomics, you don't need to delete articles about deleting webcomics too. That looks like censorship to me. Scottyl 01:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I'd appreciate if people gave their opinion not in reaction to the comics fans above (and other who will likely come). They don't know much about how these pages function or what types of arguments work well. We should consider this article on its merits, and not on the eloquence or lack thereof of some of its advocates. JoshuaZ 03:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that an IP inserted the following into the Adam's post above (I'm moving it down here so as to not confuse the matter: "I think that the Wikinews community needs to be careful of anything that could hurt the integrety of the community. I believe the best solution would be to use this as a process to help improve the definition of noteworthy. The request for speedy deletion in this case gives the impression of heavy-handiness, proving the point of the article. My suggestion is that if there is disagreement with the point of this arguement, solution would be the use of debate through the community page, not speedy deletion. However, if the Wikinews community wants to prove the point of the article, then go ahead." JoshuaZ 05:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I've reopened this DR on the basis that is it perfectly valid to propose the deletion of a page wherever it is. Adambro 11:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose deletion, I dispute Adam's assertion that this is not notable - quite simply I would not have started the story had I not felt there was likely to be enough interest to make it a newsworthy item. People who have opposed have mentioned coverage of the issue elswhere, GIVE LINKS!!! PROVE NOTABILITY!!! (sorry for shouting). Those who are new to wiki are making the same mistakes as were made in a number of the webcomic deletion requests. Complaining "it's not fair" isn't a good enough argument. Sources, references, statistics. These are all things required when reporting news - you are dealing with FACTS. I don't for a minute believe any of the people coming into this discussion who are newbies have not seen a report on the BBC or CNN sites. That is what we strive for, material that wouldn't look out of place on one of the mainstream news sites. That doesn't involve personal attacks on random Wikipedia editors/administrators within the article. I removed that at one point. If you have usernames of Wikipedia editors/admins who you believe have over-zealously prosecuted the deletion of web comics you should name them and give links to comments they have made in Wikipedia deletion requests. I expect this article to survive a deletion request, and it will not be published until those who accusations are being made against have been contacted and given a right to reply. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So basically you are asking people like me, who have never or rarely made edits, to search for discussion pages of deleted pages in which they participated in the past? The problem I have here is that on the discussion page of the article, it is stated that discussion of deleted pages isn't available due to being deleted. Rally cries of censorship are mostly about deletion without notice, and because the policy is to get rid of any proof respectively discussion about the deletion process. Therefore it is practically impossible to show any deletion comment based on the memory of misbehaviour, and on the knowledge in which article it happened. Additionally any deletion requestee can claim "not newsworthy" or "not notable" or other soft and personal opinion related reason, which are practically impossible to refute (even if theoretically not intended as such). Of course I totally misunderstand wikimedia's idea of how things are supposed to run, and are more focusing on how things actually happen in my view. Wikimedia stuff just needs a disabled tag, like every database. Obviously I oppose deletion in general. 14:42, 28 October 2007 (MEZ)
 * In Howard's blog comments I have seen mention of comments such as "You really hate webcomics" supposedly being in deletion requests. Yes, talk pages and article pages get deleted, but all the deletion votes are kept and archived. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I love the irony of someone heavy-handedly trying to delete an article about the heavy-handed over-deletion of articles. It's like a badly done government coverup.  As long as the article is unbaised and properly referenced, what's the problem with it? Oppose deletion, if my vote counts for anything. 64.131.243.239 13:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, ive taken a few minutes to review the guidelines more clearly, and first of all, the guidelines clearly say "Before nominating or voting on an article, consider: is there any way the article could be fixed, instead of deleted." Your primary complaint, other than loading us with a slippery slope fallacy which makes up the vast majority of your request, Adambro, is that you "doubt this article will ever develop into a well balanced report looking at the issue". How about instead of nominating such an article for deletion, you try to contribute and make sure such an article maintains NPOV? I mean, its right there in the guidelines, yet you have made no effort to rectify the problem you saw, instead nominating it for deletion immediately, when the guidelines clearly read "Please use deletion only as a last resort.". Whoops. The guidelines, clearly described here also say that if you have doubts about the POV or bias of an article you should list it as under dispute. Care to guess what you completely failed to do? You have seriously jumped the gun on this, all in favour of a heavy handed delete because you see a slippry slope that, provided the systems i see in place are maintained, wont happen. It is pretty easy to seperate the bitching and moaning from the relevant material, the chaff from the wheat, as it were, and maintain standards without letting the overly dark picture of the future you paint be the only possible one. Since im a newbie, i doubt you care about my opinion, but for the record, i Oppose deletion, for all the reasons above, not least being that the guidelines have clearly not been followed with regards to this request, as demonstrated above. Regarding notability, well, whats notable really depends on whom you talk to, also, the problem in question is a lot larger than just webcomics, it extends to articles on other forms of electrinic media as well, including browser based games. While you may not consider it notable, there is a sizable group of people who are interested in this topic, or certainly would be if they knew about it. --The Grimch 15:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

 * First, about myself: I'm a Schlock Mercenary reader, who after a long wiki abstinence felt this to be a good time to contribute again. So I foraged through user pages and old AfDs trying to dig up something relevant and so far unnoted. Came back here, and the article is UP FOR DELETION! I'm trapped in a Monty Python movie, right? The implications: The very same problem WP obviously has is now reproduced and documented on WN. Adambro, you try to get content deleted which you think of as potentially damaging for the project. The way you are doing it is violating established procedures, which mirrors the way articles were smacked down on WP previously, but that's not the point. The point is that you, Adambro, are about to damage the reputation of WN and WP even further by perpetuating the same mistakes which the article is about here. WN is trying to be a reliable, trustworthy news outlet, right? How can it be worth my trust when potentially controversial issues are not permitted to be news? Especially when the issue at hand is the very own project. What has happened so far could (and given the vastness of the 'net, it will by some) be construed as an attempt to further the anti-deletionist point by reverse psychology. Please stop the absurdity and drop this DR. Let this article run its course, and maybe some good will come of it. The deletion would be LOX on glowing embers. Oppose deletion, fwiw. --Thurog 84.59.31.38 16:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This DR isn't likely to go anywhere. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what leads you to that conclusion. Certainlu comments by anons coming from a blog aren't(I hope) going to be treated as a strong reasons to keep simply because they make cries of "censorship". JoshuaZ 17:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Am I more aware than you that this is not a vote? As such, the points I brought up should be of note, not the fact that I chimed in or who I am and where I come from. There is a controversy, that's a plain and simple fact. The article is about this controversy, fact. I don't even think it's a particularly good article in its current revision. But it needs to have the chance to be worked on, not being deleted outright. I don't like the word "censorship", because that in itself implies a higher power running this site. Instead, I'd like to call a deletion "highly POV in the selection of newsworthy items". Which, given the context, might be quite as bad. It's damaging the reputation of WN and WP. --Thurog 84.59.31.38 20:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your comment about the standard deletion procedure is actually a reasonable point- however, if there develops a consensus that this isn't news and that attempts to make it news are hopelessly flawed we don't need to bother going through the entire process in that fashion, especially given the damage and timewasting that that would likely entail. Wikinews is not a bureaucracy. As to damaging the reputations- it shouldn't be any more damaging than if the New York Times decided not to run an article on the subject, and there's very little POV in saying that some flamewars between two communities is not inherently newsworthy. Unless, do you for example think that we should do news articles on every flamewar that Mike Godwin has gotten into about details of internet law? If not, then you may see how deletion isn't inherently a POV issue. JoshuaZ 20:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if trying for such consensus was the goal of this DR, it should be pretty much clear that it's not going to happen at this point. There is not even one outright supporter of deletion. The NYT comparison doesn't hold water, I'm afraid. They are not involved per se, and this case is more like the NYT editor in chief being accused of unprofessional conduct and the board decides to sweep it under the carpet. To be honest, I think the whole case gets blown out of proportion by the DR. It's not like the northern hemisphere depends on this article being published or not. Just finish, publish and be done with it. --Thurog 84.58.253.83 21:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There's at least one supporter of deletion, the nominator, and of the regular users who have commented, they haven't been terribly in favor of keeping. If you object to the New York Times analogy, I can tweak it to be more relevant; say the Boston Globe irritates some specific community, and the New York Times decides not to publish an article on it. Now, both are owned by The New York Times Company. That doesn't make it problematic if the NYT decides not to publish an article on the dustup. And if the matter is somehow getting blown out of proportion and as you assert "It's not like the northern hemisphere depends on this article being published" that is if anything simple evidence that this isn't newsworthy in that even a proponent agrees that this doesn't matter. And no, the default is not just go and publish. If something isn't newsworthy we're not going to publish it to make people happy. Doesn't work that way. Indeed, that would lead to far more serious POV problems. JoshuaZ 21:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

 * We've opened pandora's box with this article by inviting disgruntled individuals annoyed about articles being deleted from Wikipedia to come here and air their point of view through an article. Articles are deleted from WP all the time, where do we draw the line as to what merits an article? Now our processes are been hijacked by these individuals who wish to abuse Wikinews to further there own anti-Wikipedia agenda. We've got to stop this. Sure we'll have some nasty words said about us on various blogs but I'm afraid that's a price we'll have to pay to prevent our reputation being more seriously impacted. Adambro
 * I'm inclined to agree with you, but I'm not completely convinced. The fact that Broken Frontier interviewed both Jimbo and Dragonfiend in this matter is an argument for it being a newsworthy topic. I also think that we can likely write an acceptable article that conforms to NPOV and isn't a rant (see the current version). But yes, I very much agree that this is potentially a pandora's box. Wikinews is not Encyclopedia Dramatica nor is it the Wikipedia Signpost. We do need to approach this very carefully. JoshuaZ 17:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Oppose Deletion. I don't buy the argument about the NYT not running an "op ed" bit because they decide what is news because of this:  if the public is supposed to define what they think is news on wikinews, then they can decide that this subject is worthy of attention.  And, to be honest, it really, truly does smell like an attempt at censorship to have an article like this deleted.--Jorm 18:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral I feel that this is a subject that is intresting and noteworthy. On the other hand I'm concerned there may be too much of a conflict of interest. Therefor I'm neutral. Bawolff ☺☻ 19:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose Deletion. Deleting this instead of dealing with it is only going to just piss more people off. Jigsaw 20:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Who cares if it pisses people off. If it is not an appropriate story for wikinews we will delete it, if it is we will keep it. If we piss a bunch of people off in process, feel free to get a blog and tell the world how mean, evil, cencored/whatever we are, but it won't play into are decision to keep or delete the article. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For the sake of keeping people happy and willing to share with Wikipedia, I'd think that not going out of your way to aggravate a series of users who are otherwise willing and able to work on the site is a very good reason to care. Wikipedia's strength is supposed to be that everyone can edit it, and quite frankly, all the blog articles in the world won't make a difference to you if you seriously think that just because we're not ingrained in the wiki-hierarchy, our opinion is worthless; and that's exactly the kind of mindset that keeps people from trying to help wikipedia.
 * That's why I'm trying to tell you to your face that deleting this article is simply a very bad idea. Surely Wikipedia's reputation as a neutral information resource is more important than the Wikipedia admin's reputation as a Bureaucratic Hive Mind. Jigsaw 00:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikinews is not Wikipedia. Adambro 00:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And jumping off that, being an actual neutral information sources is more important to both those projects than having good reputations and being poor sources. Furthermore, being poor sources would eventually hurt the reputation matter anyways. Again, there are few things we could do worse than to cater to specific groups to curry temporary favor. That way leads to a loss of all honor and reputation. JoshuaZ 00:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Comment - Looking into some of the background of this, I don't seem to be able to find anything recent about this. The sources are all from ages ago. Is the only new point that this article is making that when a Wikinews editor asked to advertise the site on a webcomic website they were turned down because of this long standing issue. If this is the case then I'm not sure how newsworthy this is. Whilst the Wikinews editor might have been surprised by this, it doesn't seem too surprising when this issue is considered and so I'm not sure what it is we are really saying with this article. All it seems to say is that someone who could be seen to be from a particular group (Wikimedia editors) asked someone from another group (the webcomics community) whom the first group had previously upset about advertising and was refused. Newsworthy, don't think so. Adambro 00:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll agree on that bit, at least. Give it a day or two; I'm sure I can go out and find a few more 'recent' sources to suit your tastes.Jigsaw 01:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a good point that Adam makes and almost pushes me into the delete camp; the one thing that prevents that is that the article does say it is an "investigation". Investigative news can be about older things that aren't as timely and Wikinews has done that sort of thing in the past (I can't recall a single example here of that where it hasn't been controversial but as a type of journalism it is well-established in the general journalistic community). So as a simple new newstory this fails; the question then becomes is this worth making an investigation over? As to that, I'm not convinced either way. JoshuaZ 12:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Strongly Oppose Deletion. Failing to publish a news article simply because it might be controversial is completely against the spirit of journalism. Controversy should be exposed and debated, not hidden - and the purpose of news in this sort of case is to bring up the topic for debate. Any news source that refuses to publish articles on controversial topics not only isn't a legitimate news source, it should go away so it doesn't distract people from useful information sources. Chandon 05:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We have no responsibility whatsoever to "bring up the topic for debate". We are interested in reporting news, the newsworthiness of being refused advertising is questionable, needlessly getting involved in a Wikipedia issue is a further reason to avoid this issue. Adambro 07:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it not the duty of the free press to bring people the story, regardless of who it is involved with? Besides, you failed to answer the point Chandon made, that refusing to allow something to be published, either through deletion or just plain stalling because it is controversial goes against the spirit of journalism. Why is wikipedia free from being reported on? Are there any other mainstream sites that the users of this wiki are forbidden to write articles about? Or is this just a special pleading? --The Grimch 07:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't just simply a controversial article. The issue is that allowing an article to pass which could be seen as an attempt to "get back" at Wikipedia where there is questionable newsworthiness could harm our position as part of the Wikimedia Foundation. There are processes on Wikipedia for resoliving issues, I don't think we need to highlight this here. There is clearly a lot of annoyed webcomic fans, as demonstrated by the number of new users commenting on this DR, they would be much better focusing their efforts on resolving this with the Wikipedia community rather than trying to get articles like this published. No news organistation would publish news where in doing so could leave it open to big problems, we'd be foolish to do so in this situation. Webcomic fans seem to be letting their wish to get their annoyances with Wikipedia of their chest in the way of actually doing something positive to sort the problem out. This seems to have been going on for months, brining it up now seems pointless as the new information, that a webcomic editor doesn't want to support Wikipedia, is hardly suprising and isn't worthy of an article. Adambro 12:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me put it this way then: Howard Tayler's incident isn't in and of itself newsworthy. The protest staged by the webcomics community in general certainly is, though, and if you delete this because it's not 'newsworthy enough', it certainly WILL be when the backlash from deleting it comes up. Jigsaw 17:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As I've pointed out before, we need more reason to believe that this is actually newsworthy. The Discovery Institute likely has an operating budget larger than the gross profit of the top 100 webcomics combined. The DI is pissed at Wikipedia. And that's routine. So how is the Webcomics community so major as to consider a segment of the community protesting to be newsworthy? JoshuaZ 17:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say 'prove it' if I felt that it would have any validity on the discussion at hand - The top 100 webcomics isn't saying much. However, many webcomics (such as Penny Arcade) have been very successful at motivating their fans into action, and they probably have more manpower to throw at the problem than the Discovery Institute does. Either way, leaving a paper trail of deletion after deletion of any mention of the problem is not likely to endear anyone to Wikinews or Wikipedia, and is far more likely to motivate further resistance. Jigsaw 18:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

 * The comment above by Jigsaw demonstrates exactly why we should delete this article. The webcomics community think they can hold us to ransom with it, saying if we delete it we will see a backlash. No, that's not how we work here. We need to delete this article to send a clear message that we don't allow threats to influence news. Adambro 17:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I must disagree. First, I'm not convinced the comment was a threat per se, merely an observation that this will become more newsworthy if we end up deciding that it isn't newsworthy. I agree that threats must not influence news in any way. However, that means that we should not delete or keep articles based on threats. We should evaluate this article independently of any threats that have been made. JoshuaZ 17:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I'm not in a position to be making threats on behalf of the community anyway. _____ is not my personal army, but that doesn't mean I can't take a few reasoned guesses as to what might happen if suddenly new fuel is added to the fire like a deletion would do. Jigsaw 18:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this is ridiculous. The implied reasons for the deletion request are (a) We're attracting "the wrong sort of people", and (b) we might damage our standing with other projects by being critical of them. No, no, no, NO!

The response to (a) above is that the disruptive editors will leave when their contributions are reverted. They may further disrupt things by posting opinion and such on talk pages, but - as I say - they will not stick around. Some of the contributions made have been positive and I do believe a number of the new contributors who want to see this published have read guidelines and are contributing positively. (b) Can I shout? WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU THINKING? If Wikipedia can take flack from the mainstream press, they can take flack from Wikinews. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There are not so good arguments on both sides here. However, Adam's initial nomination comment hasn't been well responded to. The bottom line is that for one reason or another Wikipedia pisses off specific communities all the time and it isn't completely clear why this example is substantially different. For example, Dean Radin and his fans are annoyed at us right now, the Discovery Institute is so annoyed that in their press releases they throw in random snide comments about Wikipedia and those are only the examples that I've noticed in the last two weeks. So the inquiry about what is newsworthy about this does need a good response. I'm not convinced that response has been given yet. JoshuaZ 17:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Deletion I've come across this problem and related ones and it's not just an issue for comics. There's some Orwellian stuff going regarding the Cold War (Victor Perlo being a prime example) that has a completely different cast of characters and motivations than the comics stuff but they do share some tactics so it's not just a long-past spasm of deletions. While you can find the old versions if you search hard and have admin access. If you don't know what to search for, the evidence is easily overlooked. A wikinews article on the subject could do good service to both identify the problems that are out there (not so happy news for the wiki optimists) as well as identify some efforts to fix things (not so happy news for the wiki pessimists). If well written, it could be a good piece of journalism. 65.104.190.11 17:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikinews is not a newsource and it is not a forum to complain about or deal with general problems at Wikipedia. We don't do advocacy journalism. If you need assistance with specific issues on Wikipedia please by all means feel free to contact me on my talk page there. JoshuaZ 17:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

 * A possibly relevant obseration: This really isn't the webcomics community as a whole, but more a certain popular subset. For example, xkcd is still on very good terms with Wikipedia and if I had to make a guess from the comments I've seen the author, Randal Munroe, make, I'd say that he isn't even aware of this dustup. And XKCD is one of the more popular webcomics in existence at this point. JoshuaZ 17:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose delete and support publishing This is a well-written piece that clearly addresses an issue. I somewhat disagree with the template at the top of this discussion; it sounds exclusionary.  We are an open community here to invite participation.  To signal that those who participate might not have their opinions matter much is not what I think we should be doing here.  I don't see any good reason to not publish this article, and it's high interest level shows it's a good topic.  I see no reason for this to be held up any more.  I support closing this per SNOW and publishing the article. Rome will not fall, nor will Wikinews. --David Shankbone 18:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This DR should be closed per SNOW
This deletion request should be closed. It is quite clear that consensus is in favor or publishing the article, and the only one who supports deleting it is the nominator. This isn't the way an inclusive, community-oriented news site should be operating. This DR should be closed per SNOW. --David Shankbone 19:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Close it. At this point the only user I have seen actively pursuing deletion is Adambro and his arguments for deletion have been pretty well determined to be unfounded, or at least grossly exaggerated. I believe it was an attempt to prevent publishing via STEAM, to be perfectly honest. Jigsaw 20:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that makes no sense. You cannot claim that I've been trying to suppress minority opinion whilst trying to get this DR closed which in itself would suppress my, as you note, minority opinion that this should be deleted and my right to bring this up for discussion. Adambro 20:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are reading what he wrote correctly. He is making the point that pretty much nobody else agrees with you, so you are trying to steamroll the article into not being published by holding it up here.  --David Shankbone 20:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sürmene
Malformed portal for a some district of a town in turkey. I don't even think we have a cat for it. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Confused: And do what with the articles there? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about the portal-like page at Sürmene. The articles listed there are all for turkey, and are unrelated. (DPL does not reflect the place the portal is for) Bawolff ☺☻ 04:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete  —Fellow Wiki  Newsie 01:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete... (anyway, should it be kept (though unlikely), it would be moved to the Portal: namespace) - Jurock (reply) 22:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - --SVTCobra 14:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Nortel Government Solutions named Outstanding Organization of the Year
Check the date. That's into archive territory and old news. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC) }
 * Delete as nom --Brian McNeil / talk 20:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The news in the article happened weeks ago. It doesn't make sense publishing news from Oct. 3 on Oct. 20. It also wouldn't make sense if we published the article with an Oct. 3 date because Oct 3. is finished!  —Fellow Wiki  Newsie 20:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: per above DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Nortel and Category:Nortel
They only have one article, which is also developing. We usually create categories of companies when we have five or more articles on them.  —Fellow Wiki  Newsie 13:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Votes

 * Delete per nom. Adambro 15:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am working on more new... HammondJr 19:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Keep: Assuming they make good and useful contributions to it...much like Buffalo, New York category/portal DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral on category. Nortel is a big company, we have categories for others like Google or Microsoft. Nortel isn't quite so high profile, but they are responsible for some significant high-tech comms setups. For the Portal... Delete, once there's enough articles to justify it - sure. That's when it would also be appropriate to set up Nortel to point to the portal, but if you put links on the category page to WP and perhaps the corp. logo then when we reach the "magic 5" we can have Nortel as a redirect to the category. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

the portal (already done I see) the category. But might I suggest that we review Template:Nortel/New page? --SVTCobra 03:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral. although 1 article is very low, There is an article, so it really doesn't matter to em personally. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:PD-article
In September of 2005, the Wikinews community overwhelming selected CC-BY as their license of choice. On September 25, 2005, Angela Beesley, then a member of Wikimedia Board of Trustees and speaking on behalf of the same, certified the results and declared: "CC-BY has now been agreed upon by the Wikimedia Foundation to be the new license for all existing and future versions of Wikinews. Any edits made previously remain public domain - it is only new edits that will need to be under this Creative Commons License."

The template now up for deletion is used exclusively by a single individual who seeks to impose his ideal on the entire community. This must not be accepted, for Wikinews can not tolerate chaos in the licensing of its articles. --+Deprifry+ 23:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, okay watch the rhetoric there, "chaos" comes about from PD articles? A WN user is "imposing his ideal on the entire community"? This isn't a dictatorship we're discussing, let's try not to use scare-tactics. Now, that said, all WMF allow users to determine how to license their own works - whether GFDL, PD or CC-BY. By default, all WN edits are CC-BY, but that doesn't mean that the release of specific articles into the Public Domain is going to harm the project in any way. Sherurcij 23:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I very much disagree, using different licenses does harm the community as it potentially confuses readers and increases the chance of misunderstandings about how our content can reused. Just as Wikipedia content has to be GFDL, Wikinews content has to be CC-BY and individual users must abide by this unless the community decides to adopt a different license. Adambro 17:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, any declarations that an article is PD after the change to CC-BY was made should be removed as all contributors have agreed to the statement when they edit that "Your work will be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License and will be attributed to Wikinews." This makes the use of PD on WN invalid. Adambro 17:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I agree with your sentiment, I don't get your reasoning. Just because someone releases something under the creative commons license doesn't mean that they can't release there work into the public domain at a later date. All users do abide by the license. Everything PD is CC-by, in wikipedia, its common for users to multi-license there contribs (however putting a template on an article is totally different...) Bawolff ☺☻ 22:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Delete CC-BY is our license. gotchas like if you don't read this and run through hoops then you consent to release ur edits under whatever license we like as well as give us your car and big screen TVs are a no-no, for obvious reasons. there are several alternatives that can be used instead. evangelists for various licenses can always hold a straw poll on the cooler to see if there is wide support for their license. if wide support isn't there, try a template message on article talk pages that encourages editors of those page to permit their edits to individual pages to be released under whatever license. if all editors to a page agree, then that page can be added to a separate list (maintained on a userpage or elsewhere) of all articles released under that license. –Doldrums(talk) 11:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Completely agree that we shouldn't have this template and new PD articles unless the community as a whole agrees to allow PD. Previous consensus as shown by the vote was to change to the CC license and we should stick with this until consensus shows otherwise. Regardless of what license the community want, having more than one license will serve to confuse readers and increase the likelihood of their conditions being. We should concentrate on writing news and not be distracted by issues like this. There is very little difference between CC-BY and PD apart from the attribution requirement and so we should dismiss as nonsense any user's attempts to hold the community at ransom by threatening not to contribute if they can't use PD. This is up to the community and we shouldn't feel forced to bow to the demands of single users especially in such a minor issue. The attribution requirement is not going to dissuade people from using our work and has the advantage of ensuring the Wikinews community get the credit they deserve and promotes the project. Adambro 17:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete' - you know my views - the license here from Sept 25, 2005 onwards is CC-BY not PD. Just no from me. --Mark Talk to me 17:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - you also know my views. The WMF chose that license... There are no more PD articles for a single reason and that is that it was considered better to have the CC-BY 2.5 license, as simple as that. Why resign to being attributed? - Jurock (reply here) 21:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please delete. I don't want to touch this thing. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Let's get rid of this, please.  —Fellow Wiki  Newsie 23:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Jcart1534 20:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Sorry, but at the moment it is being used in a way that is going to cause mayhem and confussion. I feel that the only acceptable way to do this is if it was added at time of archival, as otherwise it would discourage users who do not like PD. My suggestion is that for anybody who likes there stuff under the public domain, to put a little template on their user page (theres also a cat, can't remember it off the top of my head) that nicely says they multi-license their contibs in whatever way they personally like. I do not feel that this template is acceptable in its current form. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - if a person releases his contributions into the public domain, that's his fucking business. MessedRocker (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is which is why this template should be deleted. Declarations on user pages that all edits are PD are fine by me. Where this distracts from the real business of writing articles as it has done on many occasions where articles have been tagged as PD then we should take the view that we have to draw the line and demonstrate this isn't worth the problems it causes. Adambro 22:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ashton Bonds.jpg
Image is not fair-use as it is from a competing news agency, namely The Roanoke Times. URL=http://www.roanoke.com/news/images/news_101707_staunton2.jpg --SVTCobra 18:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Votes

 * Delete per own nom. --SVTCobra 18:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That could be speedied. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Oral Roberts University
Somewhat encyclopedic, part of someone's crusade. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Votes

 * Delete as nom. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete  —Fellow Wiki  Newsie 17:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete pointless small ranged category that serves no purpose - We only need categories if there is >5 articles for them. Matt | userpage|contribs 20:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep unfolding issues. Latest development today. C56C 17:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - too narrow - can be recreated if need ever arises. --SVTCobra 00:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strike my vote of too narrow as there are now many articles, but we should consider the possibility that this is a pov-pushing attack. --SVTCobra 03:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Comment The category now has six articles relating to various aspects of a national covered story. Plus if you search "ORU" there are a few other wikinews articles about their basketball team. C56C 21:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment for reference:
 *

category=Oral Roberts University category=Published
 * That is all the published stories in this cat. Matt/TheFearow | userpage|contribs 23:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Keep, good enough for me. We have cats for other institutions. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Archived football articles
What is the point?. If you really need it, why not just do a dpl on cat football and cat archived? Bawolff ☺☻ 02:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't make it and agree with Bawolff Celticfan383 09:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So who created it? And why then did you ask me in IRC to add it to archived football articles?!! I'll have to go back and delete it from all the ones I added it to. Jcart1534 16:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC) ✅ deleted from all articles it had been added to. Jcart1534 19:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Delete No point Matt | userpage|contribs 10:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete if there is no point! It will save me some work when archiving anyway. :) --Jcart1534 16:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I only created this because there was a red link. Breaking down archived articles by topic could be useful. If we don't want this then maybe we should also add the archived article category too. Kingjeff 19:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * They all have category:Archived on them. We can generate an equivalent list with this:

 category=Football_(soccer) category=Archived count=12  (I capped it off at 12, it is much bigger then that).Bawolff ☺☻ 19:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry Bawolff. I thought we were talking about the Category = "Archived football articles". I removed this from the dozen or so articles. The Category "Archived" is something else. It is supposed to be there on all archived articles (football or otherwise), no? Jcart1534 19:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry my last comment was confusing. I'm saying that category=Archived football articles is useless as we can do the same thing with category=Football_(soccer)category=Archived. Category Archived is on all (or at the very least 99.999%) of archived articles user:Bawolff 21:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think they are both the same category. It's just that one is more specific then the other. Kingjeff 20:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Category: "archived" is supposed to be on all archived articles. Jcart1534 20:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I know. But the archived category is a broader category of what we are trying to delete here and should be put up for deletion with this category. If this category is useless then the Archived category is useless too. Kingjeff 01:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's useful organising by topic - but using DPls, we DO NOT NEED another cross-cat. We can do a DPL to list things that are in both Archived and Football categories - very easy. Matt | userpage|contribs 04:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I support the archived cat staying. In addition to what Matt said, using DPL's are always correct, where the football archived articles cat is not applied to all articles it describes. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Delete  —FellowWiki Newsie 19:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Deleeeeeeeeeeeeete! --Brian McNeil / talk 19:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and use DPL as appropriate. Adambro 11:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete So we need how many hammers to hit this one nail? irid:t 01:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Here's why we can't keep this.
 * There is an existing solution which does this just as well.
 * Any solution that exists gives the misleading impression that it exists to be used.
 * This category is empty. (usually benign, but in light of other issues, important)
 * It is nationally ambiguous. (European? Australian?)
 * It is sport-ambiguous. (Would an American call this "football" or "soccer"?)
 * It is very unlikely that it will ever be linked to, and as such, a DPL is much more appropriate. (if ever needed)
 * Any counter-arguments? irid:t 01:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

 * There is an existing solution which does this just as well. What is this solution.
 * This category is empty. (usually benign, but in light of other issues, important) This is only because articles were taken out.
 * It is nationally ambiguous. (European? Australian?) Why does a nationality needed?
 * It is sport-ambiguous. (Would an American call this "football" or "soccer"?) So we distinguish the difference between the 2.

Kingjeff 18:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

 * <DynamicPageList>category=Football_(soccer) category=Archived</dynamicPageList> (type into sandbox)
 * You've got a point there (and you could argue perhaps we should of waited untill this closed before doing that), but even before this dr, it had no where near all of the archived football articles
 * Last two points (that Kingjeff responded to) are different issues then I was addressing when I originally put this dr up. Although they may (or may not) be valid, I think there is no point in debating them unless this is a keep

Template:Fbn
No sure what this template is for. Looks like another dupe of Template:W.  —FellowWiki Newsie 12:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Its a shortcut for national football teams that saves a lot of typing. Matt | userpage|contribs 21:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Then we should create one for all the football teams. This should be deleted.  —FellowWiki Newsie 19:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Delete or give more meaningful name. This is totally a "personal" template. Expecting someone to know and use this one is like expecting someone you pulled out of the South American jungle to know what NPOV means. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Adambro 11:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:People and subcategories
I'm nominating these categories for deletion, with the exception of Category:Obituaries and Category:Wikimedia. They are not categories that articles are placed into, but are used to group categories for people by the person's occupation. Category:News articles by person lists all the people that we have categories for, and it's easier to find the one you're looking for. —<b style="color:#1780bb">Za</b><b style="color:#084d83">c</b><b style="color:#003366">h</b><b style="color:#0e448d">a</b><b style="color:#1c55b5">ry</b> talk 23:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Question Are you meaning just the subcategories of People, or the subcategories of the subcategories etc? TheFearow | userpage|contribs 01:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, only the subcategories (like Category:Activists, Category:Actors, etc), not categories for specific people. —<b style="color:#1780bb">Za</b><b style="color:#084d83">c</b><b style="color:#003366">h</b><b style="color:#0e448d">a</b><b style="color:#1c55b5">ry</b> talk 00:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Just the subcategories of People, and place their articles/subcats into People. TheFearow | userpage|contribs 01:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * keep Whats the harm in having both. Eventually Category:News articles by person is going to get really really big. Although there will then be the alphabetical index thingy on the top, people might want to randomly look up just any old random lawyer/politician/etc. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep What are you thinking? Grouping categories is a must. I spent over a year working on the Wiki before I realised that our biggest asset is our archive. In 10-20 years time how much will it cost you to get an article out of the NYT's "archive"? How many articles will we have? And - why the categorisation is useful - how else will we dig up related news from our archives? --Brian McNeil / talk 20:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing -- 1987-2007 archives of the NYT are free now ;) Ral315 (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep  —FellowWiki Newsie 20:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

template:W
Previously deleted twice now (Davodd speedied on March 27, 2005, and DR'd on September 3, 2006 by Wikinews's Grim Reaper). Doesn't save any typing as random page on wikipedia is just as fast as As well potential high risk target for vandalism if it ever becomes popular. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Delete per nom. This doesn't provide anything that we can't already do. Adambro 21:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Althought it would never become high-use, as its meant to be substituted. I was not aware of the |]] trick, so this template is useless. TheFearow | userpage|contribs 03:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete  —FellowWiki Newsie 17:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, and someone please document the ' trick in a few places. --Brian McNeil'' / talk 17:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Maybe it would be better to keep then deprecate, make it display a message on the template page saying it is not to be used, and to use the |]] trick instead? It would probably work quite well to document it. TheFearow | userpage|contribs 21:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree.  —FellowWiki Newsie 21:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as deprecated not-to-be-used template to show the |]] trick. TheFearow | userpage|contribs 21:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with TheFearow. The history of this template shows that such a solution would be useful. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, and depreciate. I used to love this template. :) irid:t 23:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:WTF and Category:Overly complex systems designed by TheFearow
I see little point to this template and the associated category. I suggest that whilst this might be intended to be humorous, it does nothing to further the aims of the project and so I nominate it for deletion. Adambro 15:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Move the template WTF into the user space and delete the category. <font color="#0A9DC2">~  <font color="#0DC4F2">Wi <font color="#3DD0F5">ki <font color="#6EDCF7">her <font color="#9EE8FA">mit  18:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - My deletion nomination is not based upon this being inappropriate in the Template namespace, it is based upon my opinion that this template is inappropriate full stop. Moving into the user namespace would not address this concern. Adambro 18:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd like to highlight something I wrote below; there are a number of things on this wiki that do nothing to further the project. Shall we delete them all? Or only the ones that offend or bother you? I'd like to start at the thousands of user talk pages that only have a welcome on them, then move on to everything tagged historical, and so on and so forth... irid:t 01:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Wait for creator's comment as well. This is used for items and or bots that User:TheFearow operates. It is, from what I understand, to be used in the case those items become broken or to the like. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - We do not need a template and category to say that if there is a problem with something a user has created or is responsible for you should discuss the issue with that user. Adambro 21:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * weak keep - similiar to . Really doesn't serve much point, but I don't see any reason to delete. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - If there isn't any point in something then it should be deleted. Adambro 21:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment We do not have limited space or room. If there is no point in deleting something it shouldnt be deleted. But anyway, this was a joke, and people have been complaining. TheFearow | userpage|contribs 03:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above comment. Keep After reading below, I agree. This is a bit rediculous - it's not wasting room, its a harmless joke. I can think of a huge number of things more needing to be deleted, but that I also think shouldnt be deleted. TheFearow | userpage|contribs 03:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral Come on. Wikinews (and Wikipedia) have virtually limitless space. We preserve the userspace of long inactive users; why not delete those? Neutral because TheFearow (for whom it was created) voted delete. Otherwise, I'd vote This is a ridiculous DR. irid:t 23:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You could make a case for requiring it be substituted, but I agree, this is not really too much of an issue (Although the category maybe could be special:whatlinkshere/template:wtf). Its funny, its serving a purpose, what is wrong with it. I feel Drs for other useless templates are significantly different then this (refering to TSP specifically). this is not a random, complex, purposeless, badly working system for the pure joy of cluttering up the template namespace with stuff that doesn't help anything, this is actually used for something. Templates were meant to be used and created. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As per above: This is a ridiculous DR. Thus, keep. irid:t 01:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

FOX News fares poorly in investigation of media edits to Wikipedia
This article was previously put up for deletion earlier this week, Dragonfire asked for it to be kept as it was still a work in progress, thus many !votes were Keep “for now”. I then speedy closed it, until the interview that was said still needed to happen, took place. Now, when closing, I asked editors to move it into WN:SP, this did not happen, thus I speedyed it (according to policy). I am renoming this Article as it is: Poorly Written, POV, pro lefty, old stale news, and the fact that Dragonfire lied on the previous nomination, (and I can only think the lie was so editors could find a backdoor to keep the article) Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 02:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * withdrawn, I cannot be bothered fighting this. a precedent has now been set that says “If your article is up for deletion, say you have interview coming up, people will change there vote and it will be speedily keep ” Perhaps I should add that to Policy now. This was not a bad faith nom, and I take exception to users saying otherwise. We are not wikipedia, and people seem to forget that. Wikinews has a real problem, we are like wikipedia, and Wikinews has a liberal and secular bias, and that is annoying. I have been a member of this community long it enough to realize that there is a liberal bias in it to the point of censure and blocking of many editors

 * Keep: and NOT add to any prepared section. This was published for over a day already. And to have the work contributers thrown out because someone thinks its crap is not an objectionable action. What is proof is proof and its not my fault or anyone else's what the proof and facts are. The article was published after the DR was added, and the consensus was NOT to delete and NO ONE agreed to put it into prepared stories. I added my vote before I knew it was going to be published later. This DR is just ridiculous. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 05:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article is an interesting one and deserves to be retained. And re: "old stale news" this type of article doesn't really suffer from that due to it being more an investigative story rather than a normal news article (if you know what I mean). --Nzgabriel | Talk 05:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and speedy close this request. I wanted to email Virgil a link to our story this morning and get our article linked to from the Wikiscanner. Yes, we didn't get the interview yet. My decision to publish was part of pushing to get to our 10K total. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yes speedy close so long as the story is not moved to prepared, but stays published as it should have to begin with. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 10:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Speedy Keep I can't quite believe I'm seeing this. The article is absolutely publishable in it's present form. An interview is on the way in a seperate article. I'm sorry, but this seems over-zealous to me. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I see no issue with the article in the form it is currently in. —Meekel 22:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Does not meet any of our Cases where deletion may be required --Cspurrier 23:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Since this DR is still open, I thought I'd add that I think the title is grossly POV. Fox isn't even mentioned until the sixth paragraph. I brought this up on the collaboration page and was told that it was OK "because Jason has a bit of an obsession with them." and "I don't like Faux News much either though." I thought that was a lame excuse. Might I suggest that we retitle the article to be about Virgil Griffith and his Wikiscanner. Afterall, that seems to be what the article is about. --SVTCobra 01:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Comment. I am removing the template from this article and requesting another admin review and speedy close this. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Larry Craig
We already have Category:Larry Craig. We don't create portals like this.  —FellowWiki Newsie 22:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The category is using the portal. Every portal needs a category in order to group it's articles, I dont get your argument. TheFearow | userpage|contribs 02:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment After IRC discussion, speedy as creator. Merged into category to make more useful. TheFearow | userpage|contribs 03:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

English Wikinews has over 10000 articles
An article about Wikinews. I want to see if there is consensus to delete this. The alternative is publication. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Votes

 * Publish. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Publish - We already have Wikinews profiled in news report, Princeton media class discusses Wikinews & Wikinews switches to Creative Commons license, possibly amongst others. Go ahead and publish while it's still news. I wonder if we should cheat and bump the date tag to today due to the dekay this is causing? Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Publish A milestone that more people would know about if there is an article about it! —<b style="color:#1780bb">Za</b><b style="color:#084d83">c</b><b style="color:#003366">h</b><b style="color:#0e448d">a</b><b style="color:#1c55b5">ry</b> talk 18:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Publish Excuse me, while I kiss this guy. irid:t 18:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I *hate meta articles, and it is inaccurate - we have not reached 10K published. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It reads like a press release and seems unneccessary. I like the simple header, "Thanks for supporting Wikinews for 10,000 articles!" If we want the attention, we should get another news source to interview us and do an article on the milestone. --Jcart1534 19:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral Not sure if it qualifies as a news article. I also agree with Jcart's comment. Plus, as per Brianmc's comment there are 13 articles to publish until the 10,000.  —FellowWiki Newsie 19:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments
I'd like to submit that this is a time-sensitive issue, and things seem to be heading in a certain way. Let's close this DR by 20:00 UTC if there is no opposition. irid:t 18:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I was actually just coming to close this now, if that's ok with you? (based on your above Judas reference, I'm pretty sure it is ;-) Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, User:Brianmc came and cast a dissenting vote, so no, sounds like we can't speedy close. Also, someone removed the DR notice on the article in question. Replace? I don't know if we need it, since it's not high enough traffic anyway. irid:t 19:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no snow now. I would go and replace it, but it's already been done. An alternative might be to remove the date tag, take it to story preparation, and publish it when we reach the magic number of published stories, answering Brian's concern. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Moved to Story Prep. irid:t 19:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

FOX News fares poorly in investigation of media edits to Wikipedia
I hate to do this, but at this point, the story is incredibly stale and it's too late to publish. MessedRocker (talk) 06:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately delete, since it also smacks of POV (we are, after all, a wikimedia foundation project) and, agreed, it's too late to publish. irid:t 06:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Per User:DragonFire1024's comments, changing to abstain, since they're waiting on an interview. irid:t 08:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I personally don't like self-focused investigations anyways, and even more so for stale ones. -- IlyaHaykinson 07:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 08:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Any reason? MessedRocker (talk) 08:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Because we ar still working on it. Waiting for an interview possibly. Either way I say Keep. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 08:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep --Brian McNeil / talk 08:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. —Meekel 12:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per IlyaHaykinson, and I was never happy with the POV of this article Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 19:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:New canucks away jersey.jpg and Image:New canucks home jersey.jpg
These were downloaded from NHL website as fair-use. There are many free images out there now. The article was updated with a free image so these are no longer required. Probably speedy would be okay, but here they are for a vote. Jcart1534 14:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Votes

 * Delete Unused unfree image where a free alternative could be created or is available that portrays the same information. Adambro 15:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Question Would an SVG created by re-drawing the design be free? I have a tablet and could give it a try. irid:t 09:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment No, such an image would be defined as a derivative work and so subject to the same restrictions. Adambro 15:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as soon as a free version is available and has replaced it. TheFearow 22:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Per nom, a free version is being used on the article now. irid:t 22:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Isn't the new picture still considered derivative work? Bawolff ☺☻ 21:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I don't believe so, Bawolff (though I am not an expert). Even the original two images up for deletion aren't derivative. They were apparently downloaded from the official NHL website, who are the copyright holders. That is the problem with them - fair use, so we looked for a free alternative. The only derivative one would be the example of recreating the logo in an SVG format. That is certainly derivative. The new picture in the article should not be considered derivative, I believe. That would mean that anyone taking a picture at a sporting event would have to blur out any logos, no? It could be derivative, I suppose if the person took a close up of only the logo. On the other hand, it could be argued that the intent of the new photo was to show the logos, even if from a distance. Commons didn't have an issue with it so far, though. Jcart1534 00:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert either, and to be honest all this copyright crap confuses me to no end, but I think the image (the one in the article) is only considered a derivative if you're trying to use it just to display the logo and get around the fact the logo is copyrighted. but honestly I really don't know what i'm talking about. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the event at the arena where the person took the picture was staged specifically to show off the new uniforms. So the intent was to display the new logo. Jcart1534 01:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Nepal declared a secular state; sparks Hindu protest
Old article, but published and archived without even a single source, and consists of one line of content. If this article can't be fixed (because it's archived) then it should be deleted; it's embarrassing. irid:t 04:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Votes

 * Delete (speedy) Jcart1534 14:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete but don't speedy. I had to consider this for a moment, in particular, whether it did comply with the guidelines and policies at the time it was written. Seeing as it only has one source which isn't very clear and would be hard for most readers to access I doubt it met the requirements of the time. Adambro 15:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I cannot see how this was published - apparentally under enwikis (??) BITE policy, which I don't see how it applies. If it's not ready for publishing, we shouldnt publish it to make the new user feel good, we should improve THEN publish. TheFearow 22:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

August 31
 Daniel  08:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:June 2003 crackdown 3.jpg

 * No used and linked image, should it be transferred to Commons b/c it's licensed with PD? <font color="#336699">Brock contact... 09:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Votes

 * Delete Never used, very specific situation. Why bother with commons? irid:t 04:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Adambro 10:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete --Jcart1534 14:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Related
This template/infobox seems to be misguided since inception. No articles link to it. I cannot think of good way that it could be used. --SVTCobra 01:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Votes

 * Delete - per own nom. --SVTCobra 01:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. irid:t 04:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I see no use for it. TheFearow 21:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

August 22
 Daniel  09:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Portal:UK Trams/Archive and Portal:UK Trams
Appears to be the work of someone who doesn't understand the news system. irid:t 19:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Delete ---Jcart1534 00:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete --SVTCobra 00:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is now listed twice because nobody contacted the creator and tried to get him to turn it into an article. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merging comments and nomination statement from duplicate nomination made on August 28.  Daniel  09:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

 * [Nomination:] Inappropriate, listed as opposed to speedy to allow creator option to turn into article with sources. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominated here and below. irid:t 04:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

'Oversight' overshot its mandate
Lets delete this sooner rather than later. This isn't a news story and never will be. The only source is more than 2 years old and the rest just seems to be a very unbalanced look at the use of oversight on Wikimedia projects. There are good reasons for the oversight feature and this article just seems to be an attempt to express the author(s) dislike of it. Wikinews is about news articles not editorials. If the author(s) want to air whatever views they have about oversight they can write a blog or whatever, not waste our time with this nonsense. If they have a concern about the use of oversight on a Wikimedia project then they can raise it via the appropriate channels on that project. Adambro 14:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Del so as to serve as fodder for the next Edbrown editorial. –Doldrums(talk) 15:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * actually, i'll move it to userspace as spare us all this process. –Doldrums(talk) 15:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * done, will delete cross-namespace redirect. –Doldrums(talk) 15:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

November 10, 2007
Closer:  Daniel  10:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Nortel/New page
Not used, created by a user that obviously works for Nortel.  —Fellow Wiki  Newsie 21:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Votes

 * Delete as a part of portal:nortel which was deleted. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * --SVTCobra 00:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

September 24
Closer:  Daniel  10:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Under-maintained/unused portals, templates, and categories for counties in US states
The pages below are for portals that don't generate enough articles to need portals. —<b style="color:#1780bb">Za</b><b style="color:#084d83">c</b><b style="color:#003366">h</b><b style="color:#0e448d">a</b><b style="color:#1c55b5">ry</b> talk 07:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC) —<b style="color:#1780bb">Za</b><b style="color:#084d83">c</b><b style="color:#003366">h</b><b style="color:#0e448d">a</b><b style="color:#1c55b5">ry</b> talk 07:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Category:Orange County, California
 * Portal:Orange County, California
 * Template:Orange County, California
 * Template:Orange County, California/Top story
 * Category:Santa Clara County
 * Portal:Santa Clara County, California
 * Template:Santa Clara County, California
 * Portal:Huntsville, Alabama
 * Category:Madison County, Alabama
 * Template:Utah/Counties
 * Portal:Davis County, Utah
 * Template:Maryland/Counties
 * Template:New York/Counties
 * Adding one more: Template:Maryland/Regions —<b style="color:#1780bb">Za</b><b style="color:#084d83">c</b><b style="color:#003366">h</b><b style="color:#0e448d">a</b><b style="color:#1c55b5">ry</b> talk 20:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Votes

 * keep category (unless someone could show me how they harm us), delete portals (+associated templates) or convert portals from big done up things to something like portal:NASA (image floated right (Maybe coat of arms), topic Header, Latest news DPL, nav boxes. No subsections for bizz, science, etc.) Bawolff ☺☻ 01:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Deletey, except for Orange County, California and Santa Clara County, California, which have more than five articles  —Fellow Wiki  Newsie 23:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete portals, Keep categories. Portals are pointless, categories are good. Matt | userpage|contribs 20:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I am in favor of removing all county cats+templates+portals. "Unless they harm us" is too high a standard in my opinion. This is about cleaning and stream-lining so that the site is useful for the next generation of Wikinewsies. --SVTCobra 01:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I deleted Portal:Madison County, Alabama, which had one article, so why not delete Category:Madison County, Alabama, which has zero articles? I deleted it. Also, I dunno about deleting Orange County, California and Santa Clara County, California because they both have more than five articles. I have changed my vote to keeping them because of this.  —Fellow Wiki  Newsie 23:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * portals and templates. categories. --SVTCobra 03:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Chinese submarine "embarrasses" U.S. Navy
I think it is time to sink this ship. In all likelihood it is a hoax or simply a re-hash of an old story from 2006. Enough time has passed without any evidence to confirm the single source (the three listed are based on Daily Mail). Jcart1534 01:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Votes

 * Delete as nominator. --Jcart1534 01:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, well, I mean, if the correction tag is there, then the story should be kept. It can probably be compared with this article: Apollo Moon landings tapes reported missing. - Jurock (reply) 02:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Corrections like the example you used are fine, but the entire thrust of the sub article is wrong and it shouldn't have been published in the first place. I see no reason to keep it except there may be a need if it has gone out on RSS and we want the retraction public. Jcart1534 02:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You are possibly correct. I abstain, though - Jurock (reply) 02:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

 * It should be deleted IMO. I will agree to a statement on the article's URL (since it was published and other sites have mirrored it) if said statement says somthing like "this article was retracted, but if you want to see what it looked like, check the history", in lieu of deleting. --SVTCobra 02:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but remove content, as this has been published we should not delete it. The same sort of reason that we dont delete redirects on already published articles. Matt/TheFearow | userpage|contribs 22:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * keep but put a big correction notice that the entire event likely occurred in 2006. Deleting our mistakes, especially mistakes that got to the point of being published is not a good practice. Transparency is a good thing. JoshuaZ 23:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep  —Fellow Wiki  Newsie 21:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep with a great big warning, note that it was not identified as regurgitation of old material by a UK tabloid. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have added notice which provides a link to the story "as it was" for those who want to view that. I think that it is line with the majority opinion of the keep votes, but please review, and then we can close this DR. --SVTCobra 00:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Drtedg
I consider this self-promotion/spam. It is however in userspace so I'd like other opinions.

 * Delete as nom. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment There's nothing wrong with talking about what you do for a living/hobby and linking to your website. That said, this needs to be heavily truncated and not read like a sales-pitch. Have you asked the user to make modifications? I see that it is a brand new user page. --SVTCobra 14:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is the user's only contribution and reads like a prepared piece of linkspam. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

 * --SVTCobra 18:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Talk about self-promotinal. Anyways, I believe if he contributes (to articles), he can keep his little piece of spam, if he doesn't delete (also note Wikinews is not a web host (for random crap). Bawolff ☺☻ 00:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete userpage and tell him to not put advertising on it if he wants to create it again.  —Fellow Wiki  Newsie 00:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Thanksgiving1.jpg and Image:Thanksgiving2.jpg
Personal pictures, uploaded for this article, which should also be deleted.  —Fellow Wiki  Newsie 20:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Comment - I thought the combination of  led to automatic deletion if not improved within a couple of days. Is there really a need for a DR vote? --SVTCobra 00:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Made sure user was notified, though it looks like they haven't been back since. --SVTCobra 16:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I had to delete the images because the article was deleted and Wikinews is not a picture hosting website.  —Fellow Wiki  Newsie 20:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Institute of International Trade of Ireland Graduate Awards, 2007
From the mangled templates at the top this appears from Nov. 2. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Votes

 * Delete as nom. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * this is clearly a press release and not OR. --SVTCobra 15:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Mark as abandoned and await deletion. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * mark as abandoned. Stuff like this usually gets deleted without a DR.  —Fellow Wiki  Newsie 21:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Satanist and EMI Gospel arrange recording deal
Posted well after the event occurred, dubious sources and maybe a hoax - Cartman02au <SMALL>(Talk)(AU Portal)</SMALL> 21:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Votes
.
 * Presumed hoax - no supporting announcement from the label (EMI Gospel), which is highly unlikely to sign such an artist. DL+1613 16:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 *  —Fellow Wiki  Newsie 17:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


text:
Iran reveals nuclear designs to IAEA

November 14, 2007

According to reports, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has received copies of documents detailing the nuclear designs for Iran's nuclear program. Its is reported that some of those designs could be used to produce a.

According to the reports, within the documents are instructions on how to "cast metal" into the shape of a warhead, which are often used on nuclear bombs.

Iran does not deny the documents existence, but said that it received the documents during times when they bought nuclear material on the black market, without being asked if they wanted them or not.

The IAEA, which came across the documents when investigating the nuclear activities of Iran, first asked for the information and designs in 2005. Iranian officials say that IAEA inspectors are permitted to go to to view the original document. They had previously denied the IAEA a copy or examination of the document.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Iran reveals nuclear designs to IAEA


text: Template:Exclusive Story

title: Template:Exclusive Story