Last modified on 21 November 2014, at 15:03

Wikiquote:Votes for deletion

Votes for deletion is the process where the community discusses whether a page should be deleted or not, depending on the consensus of the discussion.

Please read and understand the Wikiquote deletion policy before editing this page.

  • Explain your reasoning for every page you list here, even if you think it is obvious.
  • Always be sure to sign your entry or vote, or it will not be counted.

The process

Requesting deletions

To list a single article for deletion for the first time, follow this three-step process:

I: Put the deletion tag on the article.
Insert the {{vfd-new}} tag at the top of the page.
  • Please do not mark the edit as minor.
  • Use the edit summary to indicate the nomination; this can be as simple as "VFD".
  • You can check the "Watch this page" box to follow the page in your watchlist. This allows you to notice if the VfD tag is removed by a vandal.
  • Save the page.
II: Create the article's deletion discussion page.
Click the link saying "this article's entry" to open the deletion-debate page.
  • Copy the following: {{subst:vfd-new2| pg=PAGENAME| text=REASONING — ~~~~}}. Replace PAGENAME with the name of the page you're nominating, and REASONING with an explanation of why you think the page should be deleted. Note that the signature/timestamp characters (~~~~) are placed inside the braces {{ }}, not outside as with standard posts.
  • Explanations are important when nominating a page for deletion. While it may be obvious to you why a page should be deleted, not everyone will understand and you should provide a clear but concise explanation. Please remember to sign your comment by putting ~~~~ at the end.
  • Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
  • Save the page.
III: Notify users who monitor VfD discussion.
Copy the tag below, and then click  THIS LINK  to open the deletion log page. At the bottom of the log page, insert:
{{subst:vfd-new3 | pg=PAGENAME}}

replacing PAGENAME appropriately.

  • Please include the name of the nominated page in the edit summary.
  • Save the page. Your insertion will be automatically expanded to the same form as the preceding lines in the file: {{Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/PAGENAME}}.
  • Consider also adding {{subst:VFDNote|PAGENAME}} ~~~~ to the talk page of the article's principal contributor(s).

Note: Suggestions for requesting deletion of multiple pages, non-article pages, and repeat nominations may be found at VFD tips.

Voting on deletions

Once listed, the entire Wikiquote community is invited to vote on whether to keep or delete each page, or take some other action on it. Many candidate articles will have specific dates by which to vote; if none is given, you can assume at least seven days after the article is listed before the votes are tallied.

To vote, jump or scroll down to the entry you wish to vote on, click its "edit" link, and add your vote to the end of the list, like one of these:

  • Keep. ~~~~
  • Delete. ~~~~
  • (other actions; explain) ~~~~
  • Comment (not including action) ~~~~

Possible other actions include Merge, Rename, Redirect, Move to (sister project). Please be clear and concise when describing your action.

The four tildes (~~~~) will automatically add your user ID and a timestamp to your vote. This is necessary to ensure each Wikiquotian gets only a single vote. You can add some comments to your vote (before the tildes) to explain your reasons, but it is not required. However, it may help others to decide which way to vote.

Please do not add a vote after the closing date and time; any late vote may be struck out and ignored by the closing admin.

NOTE: Although we use the term "vote", VfD is not specifically a democratic process, as we have no way of verifying "one person, one vote". It is designed to "take the temperature" of the community on a subject. Sysops have the responsibility of judging the results based on a variety of factors, including (besides the votes) policies, practices, precedents, arguments, compromises between conflicting positions, and seriousness of the participants.

Closing votes and deleting articles

Sysops have the responsibility to review the list and determine what articles have achieved a consensus, whether it is for deletion, preservation, or some other action. All candidate articles should be listed here at least seven days before the votes are tallied. Many VfD entries will have "Vote closes" notices to indicate when the votes will be tallied.

  • The sysop tallying the vote should add a "vote closed" header with the result of the vote, and sign it.
  • If consensus is for deletion, the sysop should follow the deletion process to delete the article.
  • If it is to keep, or if there is no consensus for action, the sysop should remove the {{vfd-new}} tag from the article and post a notice on the article's talk page about the completed VfD, including a link to the VfD discussion on that article. The {{vfd-kept-new}} template can be used for a standard notice.
  • There may also be a vote to move (rename) or otherwise change the article. The sysop's actions will depend on the specific situation in these cases. In those cases, a notice should also be posted on the talk page documenting the decision.

To avoid conflict of interest, a sysop should never close a VfD that he or she started. However, a sysop may close a VfD in which he or she has voted.

After a reasonable time, a sysop will then move the entire entry into the appropriate month page of the VfD log. (Some old discussions are available only in the old Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive.)

Note: In the interest of cross-wiki cooperation, please check Wikipedia to make sure their articles don't link back to an article that has just been deleted. Also de-link any other language edition articles (though if you find that daunting, EVula is more than happy to do so).

Reviewing closed votes

All closed votes will be archived indefinitely in per-month pages at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Log. (A few are still found only in the old Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive.) See that page for details.

Deletion candidates

Mike Freese

Formal reference to VfD because I removed the PROD. The PROD was because he was deemed non-notable at WP. However, these are non-trivial quotes, referenced to reliable sources clearly independent of the subject, which should be good enough for us. — Abramsky (talk) 10:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 11:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep--Abramsky (talk) 10:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment; we do not necessarily depend on Wikipedia as a barometer of quotable notability, and the case of an otherwise non-notable person who is quoted in notable sources is a likely example of a page that can exist here, although not there. No opinion on this particular subject, however. BD2412 T 15:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not sure I understand this nomination. If you disagree with the PROD, simply remove it. I would then expect such a VFD discussion only if someone else believes the page should be deleted. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    I think procedural nominations are ok any time a contributor feels it should be discussed, but placing an argument to keep in the nomination to delete is a little confusing. It might be clearer for the nominating statement to just note that deletion was proposed, and for the nominator's vote to give the argument for keeping. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with the decision at Wikipedia that this person is not sufficiently notable for an encyclopedic biography. He is just someone who hung out at political rallies, and was remarked by a few journalists who covered uneventful political events by describing colorful characters in attendance.

    I support the principle that we can include famous quotes of a person who is not otherwise notable (usually in a theme article since the person is not a subject of much interest), but these are not widely repeated quotes – not during the campaign season when they were uttered, and certainly not in the test of time.

    This lacks both "Notability" and "Quotability". (Regarding the nominating satatement:  I think the quotes are trivial actually, but that is not the issue. Some very famous quotes are trivial in their substance.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment I brought this here because I wasn't 100% sure about removing the PROD. Now, on reflection, I am. These quotes have been repeated in several places. If they are quoted, surely we have an objective basis for saying that they are quotable.--Abramsky (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I was not aware that any of these quotations had been repeated anywhere noteworthy after the initial "news" reports. Can you provide citations? ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Kannada proverbs

This previously deleted article was {{prod}} when it was re-created this March because "No sourced quotes". The template was removed with the explanation "Quotes from believable sources of Karanataka, India"[5], but in the ensuing eight months no actual citations have been provided. Rather, more content has been added that is expressly unsourced, with {{source}} tags included. — Ningauble (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 19:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as nom.. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, needs citations to proper sources. -- Cirt (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Keep, now that Kalki has made improvements. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I would prefer to see the page fixed and kept. At least one source linked on the page is a book in print containing thousands of entries, although it does not seem to include any currently on the page. BD2412 T 03:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Keep, thanks Kalki. BD2412 T 20:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • If someone can use BD2412's source to make a sensible article, good. The present article cannot be kept.--Abramsky (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep — I have taken the time to actually add quotes from the sources mentioned rather than bemoaning the fact that there weren't as yet any sourced proverbs. It seems that adding marks no more welcomed or needed than gnat turds to pages, in a manner that has been repeatedly rejected as undesired and undesirable by most, sometimes for hours at a time, has higher priority than saving a page of proverbs from deletion. I initially considered only adding ONE proverb: Good deeds remain, all things else perish, to simply and adequately disqualify the arguments presented on this page for why it should be deleted, and providing an exhibition of PROPER contempt for the general mental and moral laziness of those MOST prone to MAKE rules and ENFORCE rules to constrain, control, destroy and diminish the opportunities and proper rights of others by people who were NEVER chosen to be RULERS over others but seem to enjoy such roles and support each others appetites for them. I took the time to add more, but I have other priorities to attend to of far greater urgency and importance than to waste much more of my own time arguing about what I consider to be clearly ignorant and confused priorities of others, but I will state that as of NOW the page clearly no longer is properly a candidate for deletion. ~ Kalki·· 11:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC) + tweaks
    • I appreciate the effort to provide genuine citations, but I am a little unsure about how these sources are being used here.

      Examining the first source, A Handbook of Kannada Proverbs, with English Equivalents: in some instances the "English equivalents" appear to be close translations (or even common proverbs that have migrated between languages), but in others they appear to be analogues with similar purport but little relation to the literal or figurative meaning of the Kannada phrases themselves. I am not in a position to sort out which are which are faithful representations of Kannada proverbs and which are only analogous. The second source, English Proverbs and Equivalent Kannada Proverbs, is evidently a collection of English proverbs explained in Kannada, not a collection of Kannada Proverbs.

      I do not doubt the value of these works for helping speakers of the two languages to understand each other's idioms, but accurate treatment of foreign language proverbs can be a real challenge. I am not sure what the best practice for Wikiquote should be, but I think we err in saying these sentences are Kannada proverbs. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

      • I am very aware of many of the problems with proverbs pages generally and this one in particular, which is one reason I generally pay little attention to them, personally, nor to many others where I have little or no direct familiarity with their particular subject, such as MANY of the televisions shows, and I simply monitor them against OBVIOUS vandalism. I altered the intro to read "Proverbs used by speakers of the Kannada language…" and the subheading of one of the sections which clearly and expressly used "equivalents" of English proverbs to state that that section contained "Proverbial remarks as reported in…". The ultimate origins of many proverbs are usually far from clear, especially the bulk of them which clearly originated with anonymous figures long before ever being written down, but I simply qualified the intros to reflect slightly on that fact, rather than retaining intros which could more strongly imply to many that they necessarily originated in the Kannada language. ~ Kalki·· 17:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep thanks to Kalki. (But even this edit alone should be enough to save the page from deletion.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Deng Feng-Zhou

This article was {{prod}} because "No sourced quotes." The tag was removed and a reference has been added, but neither Wikiquote itself (Chinese edition, cited in previous revisions of the article) nor (cited in the current revision) are reliable sources. — Ningauble (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 16:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as nom, without prejudice to creation of an article on this notable person with actual, reliably sourced quotes. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as is, unless reliable sources are provided. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. This page has been supplemented from two sources, please refer to the Chinese Quotes as a primary reference source. ~ Adb889 (talk) 17:56,2014年11月22日(UTC)
    • References have been corrected for the Chinese Wikiquote same.
    • According to "Deng feng-Zhou Slightly Biography" English translation excerpt.
    • ~ Adb889 (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
      • This article has been added to each quotes mark reference source page. ~ Adb889 (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)