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.
Contents
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.
|
| II: Create the article's deletion discussion page. |
Click the link saying "this article's entry" to open the deletion-debate 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:
replacing PAGENAME appropriately.
|
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
Inceldom
Modern slang which is not even used by magazines given the MRA and pick up artist connotations that have become attached to it; the two quotes don't specifically use the portmanteau and can be added to the existing pages for celibacy, virginity or sexuality. There's a lot of slang we could have pages for but don't, even when the word has been used in famous works of literature such as Mark Twain's use of the N word in The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. — CensoredScribe (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- Vote closes: 19:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Merge with Celibacy and leave redirect.. W\|/haledad (Talk to me) 21:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- A merge and redirect sounds like a fine solution to me (although I would not include the salamander quote). BD2412 T 22:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, if you do a search on the google explore trends feature you notice that the term "incel" has more traction than several other terms for which we have categories. including major categories such as LGBT. Incel is not the same as celibacy or virginity - it is very different; it denotes a state of deprivation and subseuquent anguish, which is not the case for celibacy nor virginity. Turnheew (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment it does come from a fascinating subculture with much written about and by them, a subculture with it's own unique terminology, like other subcultures, and it is an English word, though unlike chav it isn't in any major dictionary. My argument for why we shouldn't have this page wasn't very convincing; we do after all have a page for trigger warning, which also originates from the internet, and just because Wikiquote doesn't currently have a page for something doesn't mean that it shouldn't eventually. That said, the additional terminology that comes with this concept; Chad, Tyrone and Stacy are names, not words; although, some names become words, such as Nimrod of the bible. Differentiating between this slang and the hip hop slang scrub, may well be an eventual discussion on a Wikiquote talk page pending a page merger. Another term Wikipedia has a page for, but which has no actually meaningful parameters in its usage is gook, which could refer to a low class prostitute but is better known as U.S. military slang, which was applied in 1912 to people from Nicaragua before becoming a slur for Filipinos, Koreans, and Vietnamese people. It's also been used "to describe foreigners in general, including Italians in 1944, Indians, Lebanese and Turks in the '70s, and Arabs in 1988", with the definition of foreigner not actually specified. Another derogatory term applied to Italians is Wop, which like the N word is not something I expect to be given a page on Wikiquote. Here is a list of criminal slangsome of which has been around for a while yet failed to acquire official recognition in dictionaries acceptable as sources. I will note for any future discussions regarding this page's suitability for Wikiquote, that Wikipedia has a page for superhero, with super being another prefix, like involuntary, that can be added to create a seemingly new concept, but which in effect is a useless distinction for Wikiquote to attempt to be making, as there is no actual definition that distinguishes a superhero/superheroine from a hero/heroine, as many of the most famous heroes whether in mythology/religion or speculative fiction possess supernatural abilities. The only real distinction between the two concepts is that one is a trademark owned by two companies. I'm concerned that if this page is recognized by wikiquote than these other pages mentioned may as well; call it a slippery slope fallacy, a gateway word or lowering the bar. CensoredScribe (talk) 06:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Pick-up lines
Having a page for pick-up lines is similar to the problem presented with facing the enemy, it is unclear whether it is about the first meeting between two characters or their continued interactions, either way, the page makes as much sense as one for collecting famous jokes or one liners in action movies. — CensoredScribe (talk) 03:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- Vote closes: 04:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- I would be inclined to keep examples for which sources can be found describing them as pick-up lines. BD2412 T 04:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- The unsourced quotes should be removed.--Abramsky (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Efficacy
There is one quote on this page which is not really about the concept, I imagine there probably are some notable quotes about efficacy (in particular, which wouldn't be applicable to a similar theme such as perfection or professional), but unless anyone knows of any, this page can wait to be recreated until some are found. — CensoredScribe (talk) 04:04, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- Vote closes: 05:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Science fiction on television
An overly specific category made to divide quotes on science fiction and I suspect get rid of a quote about LGBT people being underrepresented, though the actual reasoning behind this poor decision to create a page doesn't matter, I'm pretty sure most people here agree that "in television" is a category not a theme page. — CensoredScribe (talk) 04:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- Vote closes: 05:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- Merge to Science fiction. We have no need for the title, but can keep the quote. BD2412 T 19:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Merge per BD2412.--Abramsky (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Category:Buddy films
Subjective categorization for films open to too much interpretation unless they were marketed as such like the genre of buddy cop movies. This list seemingly excludes any romances and based off the films listed containing large ensemble casts, there is no requirement that it be limited to a pair of characters. This description can be applied to most movies. — CensoredScribe (talk) 04:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- Vote closes: 05:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- I note that Buddy films is a well-defined topic on Wikipedia, and a well-populated category there, also. BD2412 T 21:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Interesting, Wikipedia says, "The buddy film is a film genre in which two (or on occasion, more than two) people—often both men—are put together.", which is a terrible definition, usually two and usually men does not define any actual parameters, the battalion in Saving Private Ryan can make the film count as a buddy film I guess, seeing as comedy isn't part of the definition, why allow the cops from Lethal Weapon but exclude soldiers? Valerian and Laureline in Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets is about a duo of space soldiers who bicker as much as any two buddy cops, however they are also romantically involved, is a lack of any sexual relationship essential to this genres definition to distinguish it from romance? "The two often contrast in personality, which creates a different dynamic onscreen than a pairing of two people of the opposite gender," I'm calling OR, who said that? "The contrast is sometimes accentuated by an ethnic difference between the two." Again, what critic or company defined the genre as being inherently about race? I thought Bad Boys with Martin Lawrence and Will Smith is considered a buddy film, so none of the definitions parameters hold up. I know buddy cop films typically do meet these 3 requirements, but that's buddy cop films, not films like The Hang Over, those loose rules apply to a specific sub genre of buddy films.
Many of our entries in this category differ from Wikipedias categorization, obvious ones like Bill and Ted, and Wayne's World need to be added, as should Disney's Aladdin, Toy Story, and Cars because wikipedia lists them. What I find odd is that Wikipedia does not list other Disney classics like Sleeping Beauty which features three color coordinated fairies who speak more than any other character except the villain, or across gender non romantic partnership like Peter Pan and Tinkerbell, should I add those two films as well? The Wizard of Oz features 4 friends singing, and has an entire subculture calling themselves friends of Dorothy, I can see why you wouldn't want to count The Wizard of Oz as a buddy film, because if you count a group of four as buddies, than all movies about a group of friends are buddy films, that Wikipedia lists an ensemble film like Ghostbusters as a buddy film, sets up this numerical conundrum and sets a bad example for expanding the category. I don't recall promotional material categorizing the other Disney/Pixar films as being buddy films, I believe Disney normally uses the gender neutral word friendship in their marketing. This category is problematic, as there is a separate subcategory for female buddy films and none for males, making it sound like the male is the default and that the two gender's can't be buddies with one another and friendship is male by default, I hope this isn't something we intend to replicate with the category. It's also a bit odd because I don't see female action movies or female horror films as categories for the films Alien or Aliens, this is the only female specific sub categorization listed in the film categories container. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)- It is more complex than that. The Wikipedia article goes on to say: "A friendship between the two people is the key relationship in a buddy film. The two people often come from different backgrounds or have different personalities, and they tend to misunderstand one another. Through the events of the buddy film, they gain a stronger friendship and mutual respect. Buddy films often deal with crises of masculinity, especially related to class, race, and gender." It seems unlikely that a portrayal of a battalion would allow such a relationship to be its focus. If the broad categorization scheme here reflects that of Wikipedia for this category, I'm fine with that. BD2412 T 03:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know if they are part of a battalion, but would not Abbott and Costello in the Foreign Legion be a military buddy film (the duo's films are amazingly not categorized as such), and shouldn't the Police Academy films count despite having a large cast, if Ghost Busters is apparently considered a buddy film despite having a group of four, the definition having to involve two characters from "different walks of life" is an incredibly subjective requirement, Wikipedia doesn't categorize comedic duos labeling one as the straight (wo)man and the other the funny (wo)man, different sounds more like a TV Tropes category in that we have to sort characters into different personality types in order to explain how the two are different from one another, generally accomplished by visual differences (fat and skinny, tall or short, etc.) or in later years race. Also, there may be some overlap between this category with the wikipedia category for Military humor in film, which wikiquote is lacking. I think the Wikipedia definition doesn't specifically spell out that the character are not related, but I assume that is what precludes National Lampoons Vacation which is about a family, and that most comedic romances would not be considered buddies. I'm curious why no master apprentice relationships are included on wikipedia such as Arthur and Merlin, Doc Brown and Marty McFly or the Jedi in the Star Wars prequels, often one of the two characters in a buddy cop film is new like in Training Day, and I don't think the Wikipedia article says that they both have to both have the same job in the definition, the characters can just be friends like Harold and Kumar. When half of the entries in a category violate the terms of it's definition, why include a definition that is inaccurate or a category that is subjective, the rule of two does not hold up upon inspection, nor do any of the others, the current definition is two or more characters that are from different background (or not if The Hangover, Bill and Ted or Wayne's World is any indication), learning to work together. Which of the movies I have mentioned categorized as buddy films do you believe are inappropriate, because if most of the films in this category don't follow the definition than I think reviewing the definition and the category is needed. Wikipedia has pages for sub genres of fiction like magical realism, dying earth, or paranormal romance, or film genres like Noir, but we don't seem to use them for literary works or films here; similarly most most paintings are not classified under the movement they are said to belong to, there's no reason we have to use this problematic category that centers around stereo/personality/archtypes. CensoredScribe (talk) 05:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- It is more complex than that. The Wikipedia article goes on to say: "A friendship between the two people is the key relationship in a buddy film. The two people often come from different backgrounds or have different personalities, and they tend to misunderstand one another. Through the events of the buddy film, they gain a stronger friendship and mutual respect. Buddy films often deal with crises of masculinity, especially related to class, race, and gender." It seems unlikely that a portrayal of a battalion would allow such a relationship to be its focus. If the broad categorization scheme here reflects that of Wikipedia for this category, I'm fine with that. BD2412 T 03:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- Interesting, Wikipedia says, "The buddy film is a film genre in which two (or on occasion, more than two) people—often both men—are put together.", which is a terrible definition, usually two and usually men does not define any actual parameters, the battalion in Saving Private Ryan can make the film count as a buddy film I guess, seeing as comedy isn't part of the definition, why allow the cops from Lethal Weapon but exclude soldiers? Valerian and Laureline in Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets is about a duo of space soldiers who bicker as much as any two buddy cops, however they are also romantically involved, is a lack of any sexual relationship essential to this genres definition to distinguish it from romance? "The two often contrast in personality, which creates a different dynamic onscreen than a pairing of two people of the opposite gender," I'm calling OR, who said that? "The contrast is sometimes accentuated by an ethnic difference between the two." Again, what critic or company defined the genre as being inherently about race? I thought Bad Boys with Martin Lawrence and Will Smith is considered a buddy film, so none of the definitions parameters hold up. I know buddy cop films typically do meet these 3 requirements, but that's buddy cop films, not films like The Hang Over, those loose rules apply to a specific sub genre of buddy films.
Arif Azad
The article was previously PROD'd but this was removed by the original contributor. This person fails to meet general notability guidelines. The only external link is to an archived "book" called "আরিফ আজাদ এর ফেসবুক পোস্ট কালেকশান" (Bengali for Arif Azad's Facebook post collection) compiled by "মুসলিম মানুষ" (Bengali for Muslim People). I cannot find any reliable sources for this person. The corresponding article on English Wikipedia was deleted on 21 June 2018 on similar grounds. — Green Giant (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Zhu Ming (thinker)
This person does not appear to be notable. — UDScott (talk) 12:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Vote closes: 13:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-English quotes with own translations. We don not create English quotes at Wikiquote-EN, we only collect them from elsewhere. -- Mdd (talk) 12:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. Evidently not notable, appears to be a hoax or a crank. (Cited source does not exist, claimed polymath expertise is implausible, acclaimed "fatherhood" of multiple fields is unsupported, and ludicrous.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- delete probably conflict of interest and note that it is being added xwiki and suggest add
.*\bzhu ming\b.*to mediawiki:titleblacklist as seen from the other spam additions here (m:User:COIBot/XWiki/zwzx.eastday.com for some of the local list). sDrewth 07:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- @UDScott: now we also have Zhu Zhe (thinker) and Zhu Zhe in the same additions. sDrewth 03:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete this and salt it, as well as all the attempted duplications — this seems simply a case of ardent self-promotion, and multi-site spamming. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 11:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC) + tweak
- As suggested this will need more than salting, this will (also?) need a variety of additions to the title blacklist. See m:User:COIBot/XWiki/zwzx.eastday.com as an example of excess. If you think that there may be possibility of future use, then you could look to utilise
<autoconfirmed>as a gateway in. sDrewth 13:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- As suggested this will need more than salting, this will (also?) need a variety of additions to the title blacklist. See m:User:COIBot/XWiki/zwzx.eastday.com as an example of excess. If you think that there may be possibility of future use, then you could look to utilise