Talk:Wikinews
RFD
[edit]
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Seeing as [[Wiktionary]] has been deleted. --Felonia 17:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- I believe this should be RFV'd per WT:BRAND. —RuakhTALK 17:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, RFV.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- It would be for RFV, but this is going to require demanding attestation work, involving wrestling with 7 requirements. I would just keep it in RFD, and postponse RFV indefinitely. Felonia is Wonderfool. --Dan Polansky 14:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't stand a chance, but I've sent to RFV. DAVilla 05:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
RFV
[edit]
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
Previous RFD, needs to meet WT:BRAND. DAVilla 06:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- Failed RFV. Equinox ◑ 00:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Smartly, we deleted Wikibooks. To follow suit...--Gibraltar Rocks (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- It was deleted in 2009 having failed RFV, this should be an RFV not an RFD. I wouldn't be shocked if Wikibooks would be citable now. - TheDaveRoss 02:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Sigh, really, move to RFV. Equinox ◑ 03:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- The question is whether the citations in Wikinews and Citations:Wikinews meet WT:BRAND. The quotation "... Wikinews, an online news site ..." fails WT:BRAND's "The text preceding and surrounding the citation must not identify the product or service to which the brand name applies, whether by stating explicitly or implicitly some feature or use of the product or service from which its type and purpose may be surmised, or some inherent quality that is necessary for an understanding of the author’s intent" since the type of the product is seen from the quotation. As an aside, Wikinews entry was created by Wonderfool and is here nominated for deletion by Wonderfool. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:17, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Kept, if someone wants to RFV please do. - TheDaveRoss 16:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
All citations given as of now are specifically uses from web sources that are about WMF projects. Also this is the second RFV, first time was a failure. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah the cites were not convincing at all; see Talk:Wikinews for previous discussions; there is no magical exemption for being a wiki project. So I have speedied it. There are zillions of incoming links unfortunately and I can't easily deal with them all (especially ones that are actual translations of the term; must they be RFVed separately? ack!!). Equinox ◑ 02:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)