Wikinews:Deletion requests/Archives/2004

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Redirected at 02:18, 7 December 2004‎ by User:Carlosar~enwikinews.

This article will be deleted 05 Dec 2004 if there is a consensus about that.

REASON-- Potential copyright violation. ARGUMENTS-- There is a passage taken from Microsoft's web site. It seems it is a promotional material of a kind, but not a press release. So I am afraid it is not something we should not release into the public domain. (The Mediawiki:copyrightwarning says that everything we submit here would be treated as being in the public domain.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tomos (talk • contribs) 22:28, 2 December 2004‎

1. (keep):Is there still a reason to delete this then? Its ready for publishing. Four days after it happened.... :\ -Stevertigo 04:18, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1. (delete) But can we claim it is a fair use, for example? The impact on the market does not seem to be great, the purpose is kind of research, and portion of the work is not that great, though not that small. I am not sure if a public domain text could contain fair use material, in addition. Tomos 01:37, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. (delete)That passage is at the discussion page. I am the author and I have used it as an example. There are some objections to the passage, I also agree with them and I think it is not worth leaving there, so I will delete it.carlosar Dez 4 11:18 UTC 2004

Note:the polemic passage has been deleted. The rest of the page has not been deleted.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Deleted but no log.

This article will be deleted after 10 Dec 2004 if there is a consensus about that.

REASON: not an article, see talk.--Eloquence 01:29, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1. (delete) 119 21:20, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. (delete) Wikipropaganda, not news.--Carlosar 12:00, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. (delete) Adveristment. Delete.--Lankiveil 12:41, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Deleted but no log.

This article will be deleted 10 Dec 2004 if there is a consensus about that.

REASON: This category appears to be pointless.--Eloquence 03:54, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1. (delete) 119 21:20, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. (delete) The category was my suggestion. Someone has said to me that there is a similar category already, so this category is pointless. Anyway, I suggest you, some way, put in evidence the articles which has been abandoned.--carlosar 11:47 4 Dez 2004 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Deleted at 03:41, 19 December 2004 by User:Lyellin~enwikinews.

This article will be deleted 11 Dec 2004 if there is a consensus about that.

REASON:Reads like a press release. 119 05:43, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• (delete) I agree but I think it can be fixed. If someone else fix, maybe it can be published, else it should be deleted. --- Carlosar 01:56, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Deleted at 03:42, 19 December 2004 by User:Lyellin~enwikinews.

This article will be deleted 11 Dec 2004 if there is a consensus about that.

REASON:Almost no content. Posted by an anonymous user and left. 119 05:43, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1. (delete) ---Carlosar 02:05, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. (delete) Delete, not a worthy stub.--Eloquence 02:20, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. (delete) Not very useful for potential futhre development, not many edits or sign of someone working on it. Tomos 22:11, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
4. (delete) Lankiveil 12:42, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

REASON:Not NPOV article, strong biased (maybe unreliable) source. User: Carlosar 11:45, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1. (keep) Please remove the deletion request. The alleged issues of bias should be resolved, as there is nothing substantial about the actual event in question that makes it inappropriate for WikiNews, nor is the title inappropriate. If you really are certain there were less than 16,000 present, change the name to 10,000+ protest School of the Americas. CommonDreams.org report 16,000, and I see no reason not to use this figure in the headline, given that the story makes clear that more conservative estimates have also been published. - Simeon
2. (keep)The article should be removed from this category and placed in the review process. The extensive rewrites to tone down bias have gone a long way to making this a news article worthy of further review. --jkrusky 04:15, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. (keep)I think the article can be published now because it shows both points of view.--Carlosar 12:23, 11 Dec 2004

1. (delete) The title itself is biased, and refers to a desputed fact and therefore the numbers should not be in the title. #The authors have made little changes but no real efforts to remove biased comments. Someone else needs to write this piece from scratch. - chrispet109, Dec 6, 2004.

Note:The title has been changed to: Activists protest against School of the Americas.

NOTE:One keep vote has not been counted because it was anonymous.See history for details.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article will be deleted after 11 Dec 2004 if there is a consensus about that.

REASON -- The claims cannot be corroborated/verified. The article violates NPOV policy Carlosar 19:37, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• ARGUMENTS -- Carlosar 19:37, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) The article claims the USA had used napalm in Iraq. The main source is the newspaper "Aljazeera" which is clearly anti-USA and for-Iraq rebels. The other sources are left-wing magazines which are for-Iraq rebels and anti-USA Iraq politic too. The cited sources are suspectious for me.

1. (keep) All American news services are pro US and pro occupation. Therefore, if al jazeera can't be cited then neither can American news. I think this article has some interesting things to say, but is poorly written. It should be opened for editing and improvement. The article should be more of a question, "Was napalm used in Fallujah?" And then have for/against. But not having an article because it includes references to stories that aren't simply White House press releases is not journalism. And there is enough of that around.
2. (keep)Disagree with deletion. Article should instead be phrased to clearly attribute claims, including the title.--Eloquence

Note: The title has been changed to Aljazeera says United States have used napalm in Fallujah

1. (keep) I disagre with deletion. The fact that AlJazeera reports it doesn't make it biased. In the past AlJazeera has displayed bias (as does CNN, Fox et al.), but they have also been one of the few news organizations that are able to effectively report on occurences in Iraq. However, it certainly needed a rewrite and Carlosar's work on the article has made it much more balanced and worthy of acceptance. jkrusky 20:51, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. (keep) I think the article can be published now because it shows both points of view(against and for its publication) and therefore it is NPOV. Please, be carefull case you intend making changes on it. Carlosar 11:43, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. (keep) I think the article is fine. I agree with most comments in favor of keeping it. MikeCapone 19:03, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
4. (keep) Needs some work but I don't see it as having any real POV issue. Sarge Baldy 06:27, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
5. (keep) The fact that all the sources are arguably anti-occupation can be stated clearly in the article. Therefore, there are no POV issues. --194.66.226.95 15:39, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1. (delete) I agree with deletion. More diverse news sources are needed. All of the sources are Al-Jazeera or cite them. Independent confirmation of this by other news sources needed for credibility. --Dj28 15:05, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. (delete) Ditto. This sounds like Al-Jazeera propaganda. Andrew pmk 22:43, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Deleted at 21:55, 17 September 2005 by User:Cspurrier.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Deleted but no log.

• Wikinews:Weekly by 119
• Sandbox_mockup_of_Main_Page by 119

119 03:55, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Deleted at 10:34, 4 June 2005 by User:Dan100.

REASON Consensus is that the article does not meet NPOV requirement. Suggest it get deleted so it doesn't languish in Peer Review jkrusky 02:33, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1. (keep) I strongly disagree. I believe the article presents some very relevant information. It ought to be worked on and adjusted as per peer suggestion (on the talk page) so that it can be published.
2. (keep) I disagree with this article being deleted. It is extremely informative regarding the topic. I do however agree that this article is not straight news, but I disagree that it is editorial. I think it is more analysis.--Herda05 03:28, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1. (delete) Agreed - okay editorial, poor news.-- Lankiveil 12:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Deleted at 13:58, 21 January 2005 by User:Tomos.

REASON - copyright violation. I think this article was created as an example of POV difficulty we have to face. And it is a copy from a Microsoft's web page. The web page seemingly is not a press release, either. So I think we should delete it. Tomos 05:49, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1. (delete) - but if someone fix, maybe I change my vote. Carlosar 00:34, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Deleted at 18:11, 1 January 2005 by User:Lyellin~enwikinews.

This article was an outright lie at the beginning and has since sat as a corrected but one-sentence article. Listing it here as I expect it will not be edited in the next week and then be obviously dead. 119 03:23, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

REASON -- not NPOV, pure politic propaganda Carlosar 00:42, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC) ARGUMENTS -- Carlosar 00:42, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• "anti-drug efforts in Latin America criticized by report" - Who criticized? The author must be specified in the title(WOLA).
• what is WHOLA? What people are part of WHOLA? You said: "A criticizes B". But who is A? When a critic is made, you must especify who criticizes what.

1. (keep) Carlosar could you please start talking to people before you throw around deletion requests. I think you're acting out of proportion for the claims you make.119 01:12, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. (keep) I have some critics to this article but I vote for keepping it because nobody else has gave an opinion, and I dont want delete articles(I just demand articles get well written).--Carlosar 11:24, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Published at 04:22, 11 July 2005‎ by User:RossKoepke.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Deleted at 13:56, 21 January 2005 by User:Tomos.

REASON: This is not news. Hopelessly POV at the moment. It could be salvaged, perhaps, but not without a complete delete and rewrite. The actual news story here, though, is not about the election, but about Black Box Voting, and the fact that Bev Harris has been blocked from posting even on Democratic Underground. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jimbo Wales (talk • contribs) 23:13, 10 December 2004

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,65928,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_5

1. (delete) I think it is propaganda.--Carlosar 01:49, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

REASON -- POV, bad written, unreliable source, propaganda, innacurate, frivolous. US government has punished the soldiers envolved in the Iraq soldiers bad treatment scandal. It is not precise when saying US government is covering up, since the government has not denied the events and punished the guilts. The article is sustainned only by its mere propaganda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jimbo Wales (talk • contribs) 23:13, 10 December 2004

1. (keep) very important article, well documented. Reliable source: salon.com Also I edited it down to erase POV disputes. NW 01:42, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. (keep) Very important news story with credible journalist and former U.S. military counterintelligence officer authoring. Also the source, Sergeant Frank Ford is a an honorably discharged veteran and first hand eyewitness. The sources cited, Salon.com and Democracy Now! may have POV, but that does not make the stories they report inaccurate or false without further evidence.--Herda05 00:02, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. (keep) I have never heard about breaks of journalism ethics from Democracy Now!, so if they back the story, I would assume they have double-checked the facts. [1]

1. (delete) Not worth, POV, propaganda. The evidences are weak. Are you sure this news is true? Fake SEAL accuses soldiers of torture -- Carlosar 01:27, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Published at 0:08, 12 July 2005‎ by User:Amgine.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Deleted at 03:10, 17 December 2004 by User:Eloquence.

REASON -- Lankiveil 05:50, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC). No content

• ARGUMENTS -- Lankiveil 05:50, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC). See above. The article could potentially be rewritten to have some content other than a bunch of links, but it's not that interesting or newsworthy a topic anyway.

1. (delete) - The article is empty. Carlosar 20:53, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• (comment) The article is empty because Eloquence has already deleted it. See the deletion log available through Special:Log. I personally do not have much problem with this being deleted, though I also think it could be made into an article. Tomos 21:58, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Deleted at 01:47, 9 January 2005 by User:Amgine.

REASON -- potential copyright infringement. Tomos 19:27, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Two versions, [2] and [3], seem to contain a large chunk of texts from the source cited at the end. It does not look like a fair use. With Mediawiki 1.4 in place, I believe it is possible to remove those revisions only. Delete the whole thing, and select all but the problematic revisions to restore.

Amgine notified me that he could not fulfill this request, and I realized that the information given was not good for this request. Oldids that I provided cannot be seen once a page is deleted. So I checked back the restored page and identified the timestamp, which is a useful id info for undeletion. The revisions needing deletion are

• 11:20, 18 Dec 2004 (195.229.241.169)
• 18:20, 18 Dec 2004 (by 69.144.150.163)
• 19:13, 18 Dec 2004 (by Tomos)

Note that the third revision is a mere reversion of the two preceding revisions, and there is no reason to keep it after those revisions are gone. Tomos 01:46, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I checked the page, and confirmed that the three revisions were deleted by Amgine on Jan 9, 2005. Tomos 15:01, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Redirected to Wikinews:Tsunami Help/News Updates and ultimately to Category:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami.

REASON - Potential copyright violation.

• argument: There seems to be a text of news article from AFP inserted in the page. Here is the diff: [4]. If that constitutes a copyright violation, Revision as of 22:16, 29 Dec 2004 to 23:47, 29 Dec 2004 should be deleted. Tomos 00:16, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• delete. MANY copyvios. Davodd | Talk 12:28, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Lankiveil 13:21, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC).
• If you have a problem with something, instead of complaining, you could do something and fix it. --Randy Johnston 23:09, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• (Comment): I think making use of existing content is good, and my deletion request is about those revisions that contain copyright violations, not the whole page. Tomos 04:28, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.