Wikiquote:Deletion review

This page has been identified by WikiProject Policy Revision as a policy requiring revision. A proposed revision is being drafted at Wikiquote:Deletion review/Draft. While this policy may be in force at the present time as written, it is currently undergoing a community effort to bring it more fully into line with the needs of Wikiquote. Please see Wikiquote:WikiProject Policy Revision for further information on the ongoing effort to revise Wikiquote policy.

Wikiquote editors may find articles, images, or other pages that they believe should be deleted, and raise these concerns in various deletion forums. Administrators determine consensus and examine policy to decide whether there is sufficient justification for their deletion from Wikiquote.

Wikiquote:Deletion review considers disputed decisions made in Wikiquote:Votes for deletion (and sometimes speedy deletions). This includes appeals to restore pages that have been deleted, as well as to delete pages that were not deleted, after a prior discussion. Before using the Review, please read Wikiquote:Deletion policy and Wikiquote:Undeletion policy.

If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so. It is not necessary to have the original stub undeleted. If, however, the new article is also deleted, you may list it here for a discussion. If you are proposing that a page be reconsidered for deletion, please place the template {{Delrev}} on that page to inform editors who may wish to join the discussion here. If the page has already been deleted, an administator will recreate the page and add {{TempUndelete}}.

Purpose

Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or a speedy deletion where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first - courteously invite the admin to take a second look. Deletion Review is also to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article. In the most exceptional cases, posting a message to WQ:AN may be more appropriate instead. Rapid corrective action can then be taken if the ensuing discussion makes clear it should be.

This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some information pertaining to the debate that did not receive an airing during the AfD debate (perhaps because the information was not available at that time). This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content.

---

Instructions

Commenting in a deletion review

In the deletion review discussion, users should opt to:

• Endorse the original closing decision; or
• Relist on Wikiquote:Votes for deletion; or
• Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action). For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear.

Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum.

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least five days. After five days, an administrator will determine if a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikiquote:Undeletion policy. If the consensus was to relist, the article should be relisted at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.

Candidates

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.

The result was: Deletion sustained. ~ Ningauble 16:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Penn & Teller: Fool Us

Please re-look at Penn & Teller: Fool Us which was recently deleted. There is nothing in stated policy which appears to imply that a show needs to have aired to have a quote page three days before it air. The article contains an introduction to the topic, and wouldn't fit under the closest policy of "no content". ~ Justin Ormont 02:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: As the admin who deleted this page, I would like to offer my reasons for the deletion. As I stated on my talk page, until a TV show is aired (or a film is released), any quotes placed on a page for that work are impossible to verify. If quotes cannot be verified, there is nothing to prevent users from inserting quotes that are not genuine. And if the page is created as a placeholder, it will be deleted for not having quotes. ~ UDScott 18:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Although the deletion reason, "Not yet aired," is not itemized in the speedy deletion policy, it is covered at Wikiquote is not a crystal ball, which explicitly calls for speedy deletion of "articles that are skeletons to be filled in after the work is released." This deletion is also consistent with longstanding precedent and consistent practice that articles without any quotes are speedily deleted because Wikiquote is for quotes. ~ Ningauble 14:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Pages must contain quotes, and the quotes must be verifiable to their inclusion in the quoted work. Because what was recorded on film is not necessarily what ends up being broadcast, we must wait until the broadcast to see what ends up being contained in the work. BD2412 T 15:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  Just so, and also to see whether it has Quotability. ~ Ningauble 15:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Overturn I don't know what the content was but the main complain I see was that an editor wanted to release (for lack of a better word) spoilers before the programme was broadcast. Well I can say that the programme was broadcast yesterday having watched it myself so the original rationale for deletion is void so I see no reason why it can't be brought back. The C of E 18:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.

Kedar Joshi

Please re-look at the page Kedar Joshi which is going to be deleted very soon, as mentioned by Ningauble on its talk page. The subject of this page could be presumed to be notable as a source of quotes for any of the following two reasons.

1. The subject is cited as a source of quotes in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Considering the number of such sources, the subject may only be barely (or at the most moderately) notable as a source of quotes though.

2. The subject’s quote “God is a philosophical black hole, the point where reason breaks down.” has appeared multiple times in The Times of India’s well-known Sacred Space column, which is a regular, small, published, thematic collection of quotations, and, as such, it is a tertiary source. Being cited as a source of a quote in a reliable tertiary source could be considered a strong evidence of notability as a source of quotes.

Notes

The subject's quotes have appeared in multiple reliable journal articles, which certainly are not random websites. e.g. Progress in Oceanography, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Philosophy Pathways, The Times of India (The Times of India is not a journal but it is certainly a source that is considered reliable on en.wp and is widely cited there). Even Boloji.com, for example, is widely cited on en.wp. La Republica PREMIUM, WriteAPrisoner.com can be considered reliable/notable sources. (So one of the main points is: If so many notable/reliable sources had articles on a person, with significant coverage, the person would be considered notable on Wikipedia. The same way, so many reliable sources citing a person as a source of quotes makes that person notable on Wikiquote, notable as a source of quotes. Note: per Wikiquote:Quotability, an individual's notability will be weighed more heavily if they are notable as a source of quotes.) — 49.249.100.224 15:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

---

• NOTE:  This title was deleted pursuant to Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Kedar Joshi in 2010, which is the decision being appealed here. (It was previously deleted pursuant to Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Kedar Joshi in 2006. Deletion of other re-creations without discussion are listed in the full page log.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

---

• Endorse deletion, per previous VFD discussions and current discussion on Village pump. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, per UDScott. Subject fails notability and doesn't seem to be cited in the academic world, according to this. Mdd (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Subject does not meet net.kook notability threshold. jni (talk) 09:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I see two potential bases in this appeal for overturning the deletion(s):
  1. Significant new information about notability of the person, to wit: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

     The only source provided that comes close to substantial coverage is the dialogues at Philosophy Pathways. (1) This is not new information, it was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kedar Joshi. (2) In that discussion, it is disputed whether this material constitutes significant coverage of the person. (3) The newsletter of an operation targeting amateur and wannabe philosophers lacks any gravitas as a reliable source. (4) The author of those articles also posted them on his blogs, which are exclusively devoted to dialogues with Kedar Joshi. This looks more like a couple chums, not independent coverage. (5) I seriously doubt that Philosophy Pathways is actually an independent source, but the fact of using its newsletter is the only direct evidence I have that Joshi and Gokhale appear to be clients of the Pathways to Philosophy organization.

     I conclude that this is not credible evidence of notability.

  2. New interpretation of the Wikiquote:Quotability guideline regarding "notable as a source of quotes".

     The quoted sentence, "an individual's notability will be weighed more heavily if they are notable as a source of quotes," is taken out of context from a section entitled "Notability is necessary, but not sufficient, for an article on a person". The paragraph is very clearly distinguishing between notable people who are not quoteworthy, and notable people who are also notably quotable. The guideline does not in any way suggest that Wikiquote should have articles about non-notable people: it explicitly says just the opposite.

     I conclude that this "interpretation" of the guideline is completely incorrect.

  More broadly, I endorse the following comment from the deletion discussion at the French Wikipedia: "Je pense que c'est une blague de potache, une ou plusieurs personnes qui s'amusent à poster des aphorismes et des théories fumeuses un peu partout sur le web." (Google-assisted translation: "I think this is a joke schoolboy, one or more people who enjoy posting aphorisms and smoking theories everywhere on the web.") I am not sure what he is smoking: he may not be aware that his pipedreams are a joke. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)