This request for deletion has been closed by Green Giant (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to Delete.

• Plus Wikinews:Story preparation/Interview with U.K. statesman Tony Benn/winning email

This interview is now more than 12 years old and Mr Benn passed away in 2014. I don’t think there is any way to publish this now. -Green Giant (talk) 12:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove - No point in publishing it now. Seemplez 09:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.

This request for deletion has been closed by Green Giant (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to Delete.

• Plus Wikinews:Story preparation/Interview: Richard Stallman; 'gotta fight for the right to party'/Q:s2

This interview is in two parts and is now more than 10 years old. I don’t think there is any way to publish this now. -Green Giant (talk) 12:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.

This request for deletion has been closed by Green Giant (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to Delete.

The Leveson Inquiry was supposed to be split into two parts. The first part concluded in 2012 but the second part was cancelled in 2018, and is unlikely be resumed. -Green Giant (talk) 12:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.

This request for deletion has been closed by Acagastya (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to delete after Ottawahitech chose not to provide a rationale.

There are five articles userspaced after going stale. There is no good reason specified to keep them in userspace. Unless there is a reason provided for each article why one should keep them, they should not be here.

Remove as the proposer.
•–• 11:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I have looked at each draft separately as follows:
  • Remove User:Ottawahitech/Class action: Foreign workers pay thousands to obtain jobs in Canada
    • The class action was dismissed by the BC Court of Appeal in June 2018. I could not find anything to suggest there is a fresh case, for which this draft could have been re-used as source material.
  • Remove User:Ottawahitech/Privacy: Google reports more government data requests
    • Google has since published further reports but this draft is unlikely to be useful in a potential future article on something like the increase in data requests.
  • Remove User:Ottawahitech/Study: Life on Earth started in Canada
    • This still appears to be the oldest sign of life but is very stale now and I could not find significant updates. It is difficult to imagine when there might be another similar announcement for which this could be source material.
  • Remove User:Ottawahitech/United States Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price resigns
    • Price resigned, and moved on to other activities, whilst his replacement Alex Azar was confirmed as Secretary on January 24, 2018. There is nothing left to report in this story and little potential for a future article.
  • Remove User:Ottawahitech/ Buy American and Hire American: Canadian Company sued by U.S. DOJ
    • This case was settled on December 28, 2017 and there appears to be little prospect of a future event to report on.
• --Green Giant (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.

This request for deletion has been closed by Green Giant (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to Delete, with no objection to recreation when needed..

Doesn't work without the associated module which is not available on enwikinews --DannyS712 (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Gryllida, Acagastya: Does either of you have any plans for this template? --Green Giant (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Not at the moment. If the complementing Lua script is released under a compatible license, then this template can be re-imported. Links: at our water cooler; at DE.WP. Gryllida (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.

This request for deletion has been closed by Green Giant (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to Delete.

This template has been unused since 2011. Nothing links to it. It’s highly unlikely we will need it. (--Green Giant (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.

This request for deletion has been closed by Green Giant (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to Delete.

The last content edit was in March 2018. Unclear when it might be ready for publication. --Green Giant (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.

This request for deletion has been closed by Green Giant (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to Delete.

This userfied draft is about a proposed new micronation but it does not appear to have an anticipated event to re-focus on. It is unlikely to be pass review. --Green Giant (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.

This request for deletion has been closed by Green Giant (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to Delete.

• WN:Story preparation/Wuhan coronavirus transport shutdown
• WN:Story preparation/Wuhan coronavirus transport shutdown/World Health Organization declares coronavirus 'public health emergency'
• WN:Story preparation/Wuhan coronavirus transport shutdown/Wuhan coronavirus grown in laboratory

We have published plenty of Coronavirus articles. There is little prospect of refocusing these drafts because the situation has changed vastly since each of them was written. --Green Giant (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.

This request for deletion has been closed by Green Giant (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to Delete.

• WN:Story preparation/Office hours:Frank Schulenberg

• Last edited in December 2009. Highly unlikely to be published now.

• WN:Story preparation/Wikinews Interviews: Jim McGreevey

• Last edited in September 2007. Highly unlikely to be published now.

These have been put together because they are unpublished interviews from several years ago. --Green Giant (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.

This request for deletion has been closed by Green Giant (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to Moved to userspace.

The last content edit was in February 2011. It is highly unlikely to ever be ready for publication. --Green Giant (talk) 10:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.

This request for deletion has been closed by Green Giant (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to delete.

No significant edits since 2012.
•–• 11:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The page has not (yet) been tagged for deletion in accordance with the instructions above (Wikinews:Deletion requests#How to list a page here) --DannyS712 (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I am on the fence about this one but Madoff turned 82 today. I have struggled to think of any additional content edits to make. I think we’ve been expecting some news about him, given the notoriety of his actions. Apologies if that sounds morbid. I don’t think there is any harm in keeping this but if it is deleted, it would not be difficult for an admin to restore it. --Green Giant (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - Madoff hasn't died yet, story can still be used. Per Wikinews:Story preparation: "Some major events are expected e.g. ... the death of a notable person. The stories we publish about these events are often largely composed of background information that is available before the event [...] Story preparation is a common practice in news media and quite essential to ensure rapid delivery of the story. [...] We also have pre-written obituaries to enable a quick reaction when notable people pass away. While it may appear tasteless it is common practice in the news media and because of Wikinews' open editing nature you are able to see them. Story preparation helps to eliminate duplication of effort. Editors can collaborate on a single, common, prepared story rather than working separately on multiple, private, prepared stories. Story preparation allows quick response." this draft is precisely what story preparation is for. --DannyS712 (talk) 12:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Madoff has not died yet, yeah. So what? There are a lot of people who are alive. Deaths of some of them could be newsworthy. That does not mean it is a good thing to stash up the prepared articles with future obits. (Just think of a project who tries to create a prepared obit about alive people just because a user thought to; sometimes even for trivial reason such as age.) This article has been sitting there for so many years, do you see in the "open editing nature" there was any attempt to pre-review? Editors come and go. When the subject in question actually dies, who is going to actually move the story out of preparation? Even if it was pre-reviewed, what is the likelihood that after such a long period of time, the same reviewer is going to take the review, let alone remember all parts of the story, or verify the sources are available, and there has been no updates? (I can think of "Zlatan's obit", and at the time of preparation, I can use a reputed source which got one of the facts wrong. How do you think that problem is going to be solved?) If the person who did the pre-review was no longer available, any other reviewer is very likely to review the article from the scratch. After a point in time, prepared stories serve no good purpose. No matter how idealistic you want it to be, such encyclopædic attempt fails in a nightmarish manner.
103.254.128.138 (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Although I don't think the lack of recent editing, in itself, should be a reason to delete a prepared story, and therefore my stance on this nomination of the article is Keep, I also observe that the draft contains a bunch of unsourced information —which would be more likely to delay publication in the event, rather than making it easier and faster as story-preparation ought to do— and therefore I am applying {{subst:unprep}} to it. --Pi zero (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.

This request for deletion has been closed by Green Giant (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to delete.

No significant edits in nine months.
•–• 11:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The page has not (yet) been tagged for deletion in accordance with the instructions above (Wikinews:Deletion requests#How to list a page here) --DannyS712 (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this would be worth keeping if we had some idea of whether any progress had been made. Is he actively pursuing the pipeline approval? If so, what evidence can we add? --Green Giant (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC) Please see my !vote below. —Green Giant (talk) 23:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Without taking a definite position yet regarding the disposition of this specific article, I point out we need to be careful not to let story-preparation become a place to stash just any synthesis article that fails to get published during its freshness window. Historically, our story-preparation area was set up long before the era of review, when explicit deletion requests were (afaik) the usual way to dispose of unwanted articles; one might have expected to routinely get rid of unwanted prepared-stories in the same way. Since the era of review we have been very slowly rethinking the story-preparation concept; we have speedy-deletion for when the anticipated event is already well past, and we have a ten-day warning for unsourced prepared material. We're thinking about how to better orchestrate pre-review of prepared stories, which bears on how to apply the unsourced-material warning. We also recently added an explicit field in the {{prepared}} template to specify what expected event the article is meant for; but we have yet to clarify standards for the expected-event field. It seems to me the expected-event needs to be "falsifiable", i.e., we need to be able to tell whether it's happened yet (thus grounds for speedy-deletion), or no longer could reasonably be expected to happen (thus grounds for formal deletion-nomination). I am therefore leery of the bit about "or another important event occurs", and have just tweaked it to read "or another important event occurs first" (emphasis added). I am still concerned that we don't have a place we can easily look to see how the expected event —pipeline approval— is coming along. It might be sufficient to have a link to a suitable en.wp article (which we wouldn't have to believe in the sense of a source, but could use as a starting point for investigating the status of the expected event); but just now I had trouble trying to figure out what en.wp article would do for the purpose. --Pi zero (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the prepared tag notes that this is for "When Jason Kenney receives approval for the pipe lines, or another important event occurs." - unless there is zero chance of either of these happening, the story can still be used. Per Wikinews:Story preparation: "Some major events are expected ... The stories we publish about these events are often largely composed of background information that is available before the event [...] Story preparation is a common practice in news media and quite essential to ensure rapid delivery of the story. [...] We also have pre-written obituaries to enable a quick reaction when notable people pass away. While it may appear tasteless it is common practice in the news media and because of Wikinews' open editing nature you are able to see them. Story preparation helps to eliminate duplication of effort. Editors can collaborate on a single, common, prepared story rather than working separately on multiple, private, prepared stories. Story preparation allows quick response." this draft is precisely what story preparation is for. --DannyS712 (talk) 12:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see you talk about a non-zero chance. If I were to tell you, "There is a biased coin, and flipping it ten times, we get seven heads, and three tails; what is the probability the coin is biased to give heads 70% of the time?", what would you say? Clearly, it can not be a non-zero finite number, if one were to avoid the paradoxes of sizes of infinite and infinitesimal. Despite having a ZERO probability, it is not impossible. Similarly, there is a non-ZERO probability of so many things happening, for example, Putin announcing he is bisexual, The Queen of England declaring to return the kohinoor diamond to India, SCOTUS ruling in favour of curbing the second amendment, Israel finally agreeing to the two-state solution. Does not mean it is a good reason in itself to have such prepared stories. A newbie comes, creates an article, which was never checked for copyvio, and was no longer fresh does not mean you use the archive for unpublished stories excuse to hoard things like this. If the users who care about this article is active, and when the event takes place, request UDEL. Else, don't wave around the flag of "oh this is not impossible so let it stay".
103.254.128.138 (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Immediate deletion because it appears several important approval milestones have already passed in the last few months. From the hatnote in this article and the information in the ENWP article at Trans Mountain pipeline, it seems what we were waiting for was approval of an expansion of the current pipeline by building a second pipeline adjacent to the existing one. The proposed expansion faced opposition from indigenous tribes, environmental groups and the government of the neighbouring province of British Columbia. It is a complicated situation and I have not gone into the nuances but:

• Just before this article moved to preparation, on 18 June 2019 the government of Canada effectively gave political approval for the expansion. The article was resubmitted for review the following day but was rejected because it had not been updated by the nominating IP.
• On 4 February 2020, the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the government of Canada. The opponents of the pipeline suggested they would appeal to the Supreme Court.
• On 5 March 2020, the Supreme Court announced it will not hear an appeal by the various opponents of the pipeline. It appears there is judicial approval for the pipeline.
• On 21 April 2020, the Canada Energy Regulator announces it would not be holding oral hearings for the remaining 30% of the pipeline that needs detailed route hearings. It mentions that 70% of the route has been approved and it is now inevitable the remainder will be approved. All they are deciding is the exact route. It appear there is regulator approval of the pipeline.

Unless I have missed something, it would seem Mr Kenney has received plenty of approval for the pipeline expansion from the provincial election last year, the national government, the courts and the regulator. I cannot see what further approval event we are now waiting for. --Green Giant (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.

This request for deletion has been closed by Green Giant (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to delete.

No significant edits in many years.
•–• 11:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The page has not (yet) been tagged for deletion in accordance with the instructions above (Wikinews:Deletion requests#How to list a page here) --DannyS712 (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I am on the fence about this one but Castro turns 89 in a few weeks. I have struggled to find additional content because I think we’ve been expecting his death for some time now. Again apologies if that sounds morbid. I don’t think there is any harm in keeping this especially given his advanced age. --Green Giant (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - Castro hasn't died yet, story can still be used. Per Wikinews:Story preparation: "Some major events are expected e.g. ... the death of a notable person. The stories we publish about these events are often largely composed of background information that is available before the event [...] Story preparation is a common practice in news media and quite essential to ensure rapid delivery of the story. [...] We also have pre-written obituaries to enable a quick reaction when notable people pass away. While it may appear tasteless it is common practice in the news media and because of Wikinews' open editing nature you are able to see them. Story preparation helps to eliminate duplication of effort. Editors can collaborate on a single, common, prepared story rather than working separately on multiple, private, prepared stories. Story preparation allows quick response." this draft is precisely what story preparation is for. --DannyS712 (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are just three lines of information: details of his birth, his ideology, and what his brother did. It does not take too much time to review that from scratch. Prepared story is not helping anyone. Just how much time are you going to save with this? If required, create a preload template for obituary where "PERSON is survived by SURVIVORS" and sentences like that are kept. But if that is how low we are going to fall in terms of lack of commitment to a story by using the same repeated sentences, we might as well let bots fill the information for us by accessing Wikidata.
103.254.128.138 (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Although I don't think the lack of recent editing, in itself, should be a reason to delete a prepared story, and therefore my stance on this nomination of the article is Keep, I also observe that the draft contains some unsourced information —which would be more likely to delay publication in the event, rather than making it easier and faster as story-preparation ought to do— and therefore I am applying {{subst:unprep}} to it. --Pi zero (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.

This request for deletion has been closed by Green Giant (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to Delete.

Unfortunately, this prepared article has become very stale (no edits since 2012) and is highly unlikely to be completed. --Green Giant (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove as nominator. --Green Giant (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.

This request for deletion has been closed by Green Giant (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to Delete.

Unfortunately, this prepared article has become very stale (no edits since 2009) and is highly unlikely to be completed. --Green Giant (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC))m.[reply]

• Remove as nominator. --Green Giant (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.

This request for deletion has been closed by Green Giant (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to Withdrawn to allow interview re-focus.

This prepared story does not have a clear future event to refocus on. --Green Giant (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment There is some discussion on the article talk about whether an interview might be forthcoming in this regard. Seems reasonable to me to give folks a few days' grace to discuss the prospect. --Pi zero (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve just seen that comment by User:Acagastya. A few days grace is very reasonable. If it looks like it is going to be worked on, then I’ll be happy to withdraw the nomination. --Green Giant (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although Acagastya and myself are interested in the topic, we can't offer a clear focus, and the interview is not going to happen, at least not right now. We will keep our notes. This is a story which, I think, could be revisited in 2021. You may delete it, if the requirements to keep it here are not met. - Xbspiro (talk) 03:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Update CC@Xbspiro:. Just got an email from them saying we could email them the questions and they will write back -- if Xbspiro is ready for that, we could have another shot at it. I think we have a clear focus, separate from the pollution or impact reports. I will start working on it later today.
•–• 07:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would that qualify? I mean I don't think it is an interview per se, and we still don't have a focal point. I will resume, of course, if this solution suffices. - Xbspiro (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it will, @Xbspiro: -- we have conducted a lot of interviews and OR via email correspondence. As for focus -- I will be refining that on IRC tonight or by tomorrow, discussing with pizero and gry. Hopefully I will see you and @Green Giant: there too, for more independent opinions.
•–• 15:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove as nominator. --Green Giant (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would not have a problem if the page is deleted, since I can view it -- but I am afraid Xbspiro can't. Let's wait for ten days for preparation time. Things should be ready by then (else it indicates tardiness got the best of us.)
•–• 13:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn. --Green Giant (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.

This request for deletion has been closed by Green Giant (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to delete.

This draft article had not been edited since April 2013. It is very unlikely to be published anytime soon. --Green Giant (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This was a student in one of the UoW classes who were sent to en.wn to gain experience on a live news project. For a while we dabbled in preserving unsuccessful student articles so they would have the feedback to study, an experiment I started and iirc some other reviewers later tried as well; whether it worked or not, it did eventually make me uncomfortable and we backed off from the experiment in later years. I don't now recall any UoW student continuing to contribute on en.wn after the class (though we'd hoped a few might, of the many who passed through); however positive their learning experiences, it evidently remained in the learning experience bin for them. If the student account itself doesn't have anything to say in favor of keeping the page, I, who userspaced it, have no objection to clearing it out. --Pi zero (talk) 00:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove as nominator. --Green Giant (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.

This request for deletion has been closed by pi zero (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to delete.

There doesn't appear, to me, to be any published articles for this organisation and only one in development. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove per nom. --Green Giant (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove Yup. --Pi zero (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.

This request for deletion has been closed by pi zero (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to delete.

Prepared story now 10 days over the proposed date for refreshing. No response to question on talkpage. --Green Giant (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

• @Wikiwide, Gryllida: Thoughts? --Pi zero (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• If we are pinging Australian Wikinewsies, we ought to include @RockerballAustralia:. --SVTCobra 12:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pi has pinged Australian Wikinewsies, SVTCobra.
•–• 12:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and I thought Pi missed one. --SVTCobra 12:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove as nom. Green Giant (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove latest source is from June 15. We are now over two months past that. Even if this was to be used as prep for an article at the end of July, we're now half a month past that. --RockerballAustralia contribs 07:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove Well, at least remove the {{prepared}} and move on to {{abandoned}}. At this point, if there are new developments, it will be easier to write a new synthesis article from new sources than to try and rescue this. --SVTCobra 23:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove I'm sorry this hasn't worked out. But, realistically, I'd say it's time to let it go. --Pi zero (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.

This request for deletion has been closed by Gryllida (talk · contribs). Please do not add any more comments and votes to this request.
The result was to Do not undelete. The content should be kept by the author off-wiki, and can be included as a part of another story that is current.

Please undelete Wikinews:Story preparation/US judge rules Ocean City, Maryland, ban on public nudity legal --DannyS712 (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You requested this a while back, and it eventually emerged that you didn't have a specific plan to use it. What, specifically, is the reason for your request to undelete? --Pi zero (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I requested this a while back, and it was promptly deleted again due to a misunderstanding where the undeleting admin assumed that I only wanted it undeleted for temporary access. I'd like to be able to access the content in case it is useful for a future article or OR. I can keep it in my userspace if there are concerns about the prep space being a webhost (though this wouldn't qualify as webhosting, but whatever) --DannyS712 (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I was the admin involved. Some thoughts:

• From my perspective, although yes I did initially misunderstand the reason for that undeletion request, I would say that misunderstanding was the cause of the undeletion, not of the re-deletion. The re-deletion was part of the action.
• This page is, I think, a better venue for discussing wider options. The earlier request was at AAA, which is mostly not a place for discussion (although iirc we conducted the discussion of imposing a community ban there, once).
• To avoid muddling any of the side issues: webhosting isn't about use of the prepared-article space, it's about use of the wiki as a whole; so it would apply no more and no less to story-prep than to userspace.
• The basic principle here, as I perceive it, is that we don't use the project as a spare-parts junkyard of old failed articles. I do not believe Wikinews would ever have been remotely workable if we didn't delete failed articles. We have been quite willing to undelete old failed articles for the sake of a new development for which they can be used, but there has to be a new development. That option was pointed out to the undeletion-requester in this case, noting also that there's nothing to keep them from maintaining a list of failed articles they might wish to request resurrected when something comes up.

--Pi zero (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, any discussion from anyone? This isn't intended to be a part of a junk yard. I see a few places where things aren't clear

Why was this deleted without any discussion, despite much older prepared stories being nominated for deletion above?

Was the content itself problematic?

What harm, if any, comes to the wiki from allowing me to keep this in my userspace (or at the former title in the wikinews namespace)?

It was also pointed out to the admin involved (undeleting and then redeleting, not the original deleting admin) that there are clear benefits to maintaining any such list of failed articles on wiki - I have no problem with maintaining all my failed articles together on one page, should they prove useful for resurrection. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About the current undeletion request and the original deletion:

• Although the term "junk yard" has the potential to carry a needless emotive element, functionally speaking a junk yard is a place to keep old no-longer-used parts in the hope they can later be reused. Seems to me that was, functionally, the intent here.
• I am not, thus far, aware of any clear-and-credible argument in this case against simply waiting to request undeletion till there is a use actually-on-hand for the material.
• There is potential harm to the project, as we can't reasonably maintain such a facility without careful bounds on its use — and maintaining careful bounds on its use is what we're in the ongoing process of evolving for the story-preparation area. The two criteria we have now in place are a speedy-deletion criterion for once the intended even has expired, and a ten-day-warning prod for unsourcedness.
• The deleting authority cited the speedy-deletion criterion, from which it follows there was no deletion discussion. Now, the classic example of an expired prepared story is that the story is about someone's death, and that person has died some time ago. In this case, the article had originally been about a court ruling on April 7, 2020. In front of this material, the line was inserted,

__WHEN__, __something related to public nudity occurred__.

This isn't an expirable criterion: there is no point in time when one could say that, okay, it's happened and we missed it. There are therefore two ways (that I can see) to go about disposing of it: a formal deletion nomination, or a speedy-deletion based on the fact that the specific identified event remains the April 7, 2020 court ruling.

• Supposing the article had been nominated for deletion, rather than speedied, the first question that would come up is whether there's a more specific target event for it. Apparently there had been a plan for some OR, but nothing came of it, and iirc the vague statement above was the result of asking for a target event; so I suggest that in fact there was no more specific target event. The second question is whether it's okay that there was no specific target event. This is where the spare-parts functional intent comes in. In such a nomination discussion, my position would be that such a lack of expirable target is not okay.
• I don't see a remark in this discussion from the deleting admin who applied speedy-deletion, @Acagastya:.

--Pi zero (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given the current COVID-19 pandemic, it is understandable that OR is not yet an option, but I was still planning on trying to do some original research. The "clear-and-credible argument" is this: at this point I have already forgotten what the content was, and without access to it I cannot hope to write a story with it. My question regarding speedy deletion was "Why was this deleted without any discussion, despite much older prepared stories being nominated for deletion above?", not "Why was this deleted without any discussion?" - i.e. the focus was on the double standard being applied, which has still not been explained. While the "specific identified event" may have remained the count ruling, I believe that I tagged the draft with {{prepared}} to signify that it is being prepared for some future event, not for the already-passed court ruling. --DannyS712 (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In a particular case an admin made a call, as one small piece of a larger articulation of best-practice. Let's discuss the disposition of the article going forward rather than wikilawyering over the procedure. It seems to me that in the absence of an expirable target, the default handling of an unsuccessful synthesis article is deletion; that would be my starting position (subject to what else might be said) in an RFD on the article, and I see no reason to alter it because of the technicality of the current status of the article.

Re the content: plaintiffs claimed a ban on women baring their breasts in public was sexist since the ordinance didn't ban men baring their breasts in public, but the judge said the ordinance was legal because female, but not male, breasts are "traditionally" considered erogenous zones.

I'm guessing you're suggesting the OR is ill-timed during the pandemic because the issue wouldn't be perceived as relevant? I'm not 100% sure that's true, but grant that before proceeding one would want to work out a way to make the relevance aspect of it work. If it's not relevant now, there's no need for it to be visible now; I suggest reapplying the undeletion when actively pursuing such OR. --Pi zero (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that its understandable that I haven't gotten responses yet - I am actively pursuing such OR --DannyS712 (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@DannyS712: could you give a brief outline of what the OR will be or is likely to be? Is there something else in the story that could be set as a future focal event? In particular I would think we could restore the draft if (and this is not an exhaustive list):

• there is a strong possibility of the judgment being appealed;
• there is a protest planned to challenge the ruling e.g. at city hall or on the beach;
• a woman has been arrested or fined for being topless in this beach;
• local police have been instructed to discreetly avoid arresting or fining anyone;

Anything like this would make me more inclined to support restoring the draft. --Green Giant (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of OR is it. Are you going to attend a protest, make notes, and then write about it? In that case, attend the rally and request UDEL. Are you going to ask someone some questions? If you have prepared the questions already -- request UDEL when answers are available. If you have not prepared the questions and need the article to be UDEL'd for preparing the question -- well then request UDEL. You have all the options at your disposal. But if you want something with pressing emergency, I have created a git repository and invited you, @DannyS712: which has all the edits in the order, proper summary and who edited it. You can find it here. Note: it is a private repo, so you need to login. I hope this solves your pressing emergency.
•–• 23:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that I want to use the content but don't yet have a specific story that it would be used for. Until then, I can continue to develop the context and history of public nudity laws, etc. I declined the github invitation - I'm not going to sacrifice my privacy (expose my ip) for this --DannyS712 (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
two things -- First, if you don't have a specific story -- find one before requesting UDEL. Requesting indef UDEL of articles must at the very least have a well defined story. Second -- it is now a public repo -- you can access it without logging in. Feel free to clone it locally and access it as much as you like.
•–• 23:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So I don't, as you said, "have all the options at [my] disposal", only the ones I was presented earlier, declined, and then proceeded to come here to request undeletion? I am not requesting indefinite undeletion of the articles - if nothing comes of it I'll probably ask for it to be deleted within at most a year. Second, having access to the text itself isn't helpful in some archive on my computer - I already saved it at https://web.archive.org/web/20200503015633/https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikinews.org%2Fw%2Findex.php%3Ftitle%3DWikinews%3AStory_preparation%2FUS_judge_rules_Ocean_City%2C_Maryland%2C_ban_on_public_nudity_legal%26action%3Dedit - the point was that it should be onwiki for ease of use, for others to be able to use it if they want (if it remained deleted they would have no know about it first), and to allow for incremental improvements, refocuses, etc. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You say ease of use -- but what are you or John Doe going to use it for? Is there a story? No. There are a lot of articles that are deleted which could help write something about it in the past -- but if there is no WN:Focus, then you are wasting collective time.
•–• 23:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The git repo should grant you access to all the revisions -- something that might help your pressing emergency and you can work for the OR. But if you don't have any specific story -- you should find one.
•–• 23:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no pressing emergency - not sure why that came up. As for a specific story, I agree that the content cannot be published without a story - please undelete it so that I can use the content and find a story for it (that is what I've been requesting this entire time) --DannyS712 (talk) 00:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for "wasting collective time", I'm not sure how the existence of the page, if it was a waste of time (I don't believe my contributions to this project can be properly characterized as a waste of time) how was it a waste of anyone's time but my own? --DannyS712 (talk) 00:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I meant it is a collective waste of time when you are arguing for UDEL without a fixed focus. The story does not come up by UDEL -- if something happens, report it. If you (not some other John Doe) wants to do an interview, you have to git repo -- and you can say the same thing for UDEL.
•–• 00:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm at a loss for what you mean. I do not consider my attempts to further the project's mission to be a waste of my time, and I have been clear on not having a fixed focus. The story does not come up by UDEL - agreed. The existing content does - the who point of story preparation is to have some content available ahead of time. Separately, what do you mean by `If you (not some other John Doe) wants to do an interview, you have to git repo -- and you can say the same thing for UDEL.` ? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 00:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.