Wikiquote:Votes for deletion

(Redirected from WQ:VfD)
Community portal
Welcome
Reference desk
Request an article
Village pump
Archives
Administrators' noticeboard
Report vandalismVotes 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








S. K. Malik

The secondary sources, Andrew G. Bostom and Ibn Warraq, cited in the article are not reliable nor independent, they have a strong bias. The original work can't be verified. — Rupert Loup 18:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Vote closes: 19:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Why do you state that the original work cannot be verified? It does appear to be available on Amazon or through other sources. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Are you gonna buy it to verify that the quotes are present there? Which other sources? For example for what I could gather the pages "xviii-xx" cited in the first quote are from the Preface made by the translator, not from Malik. Malik content start in page 1 in the chapter "Introduction". Rupert Loup 13:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
No, I do not have any interest in purchasing the book solely to satisfy you that the quotes are accurate. My point was that your statement that the original work could not be verified is not true. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
It can't be verified online, that's what I was refering. Sorry for my imperfect way of expressing my self. Rupert Loup 16:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Good news everyone, after a long search and effort I made my self with a copy of the book. So I will check it out soon, the VfD can be closed. Rupert Loup 22:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: I have removed my Keep vote from this page due to (in my opinion unfounded) concerns by Rupert that it is a personal attack. I don't believe this is true, and I have also said that Rupert has made personal attacks and harassment against me, but in spirit of reconciliation I removed it. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 13:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


Harsh Narain

No evidence of notability, it was deleted in Wikipedia for the same reason. — Rupert Loup 18:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Vote closes: 19:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

KEEP.--Vilho-Veli (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC) - Google Books isn't necessary, every printed book in any library in the world is a reliable source.--Vilho-Veli (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Vilho-Veli: Can you elaborate on why it should be kept? Arguments need to be made so we achieve consensus. Rupert Loup 16:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Vilho-Veli: there is a standard on WQ in what is a RS, because one of its goals is becoming one WQ:PG. WQ:VERF seems to state that a reliable source is a "reputable", "independent and unbiased source". Which is similar to that of Wikipedia W:WP:REPUTABLE. I don't know what are you trying to say about Google Books, but there are other ways to find sources, the importan is that sources are presented here, I'm willing to do my best to try to verify them. Rupert Loup 22:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Additional comments: A simple search on Google Books and other search sites shows that this author has been quoted and cited numerous times. I just note that he is also being quoted in books that are not searchable online on Google Books, such as the books by Meenakshi Jain. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 10:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Reported by Ashok Kumar Pant, a software engineer, not a realiable secondary source on the issue.
Mentioned by Gilbert Pollet, don't know his occupation, probably an historian?
Reported by Qamar Hasan, psychometrician from the Aligarh Muslim University
Not quite there to prove that the author is widely reported. Which books of Meenakshi Jain? Rupert Loup 16:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
All I am saying is that was able to find enough sources using search engines, and that some sources like the one I specified is not searchable and findable with only an online search. I don't want to spend more time on something that is clear enough, but if an admin has a related question, I will respond. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
You said that he is mentioned in Meenakshi Jain's books, that means that you have access to her books. If not how do you know that he is mentioned in her books in the first place? So please, tell us in which books. Rupert Loup 21:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: I have removed my Keep vote from this page due to (in my opinion unfounded) concerns by Rupert that it is a personal attack. I don't believe this is true, and I have also said that Rupert has made personal attacks and harassment against me, but in spirit of reconciliation I removed it. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 13:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


Legitimacy (political)

The secondary sources, cited in the article are not reliable nor independent, they have a strong bias. Single quote from Nissim Mannathukkaren.

And more importantly:

Random non-notable quote from a non-notable article. No quotability. Nissim is non-notable (also has no wikipedia page).

The same quote has been pasted into many other articles like the articles Comedy and Narendra Modi (and seems to be actually an attack on the Indian Prime Minister). (see here)

Also not neutral to push an anti-India, anti-Hindu, and anti-Indian government POV without balance in a high level article about a neutral (and global and theoretical) concept like this.

While also anti-Modi or anti-Indian government quotes have their place on WQ, this is not it. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Vote closes: 00:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


Vishwajeet Sangle

Created by a globally locked and enwiki CU confirmed sockpuppet of Arshifakhan61. Article is a copy and paste from the previously deleted w:en:Draft:Vishwajeet Sangle (the content is from the second version of this article, not the one which was deleted under G13). WQ:NOTENCYCLOPEDIA and I can't see how the article would be improved into a article of quotes. Deletion seems best here. — Dreamy Jazz 13:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Vote closes: 14:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete Out of scope. --Minorax (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete for not having quotes. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete--Saroj Uprety (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


False equivalence

Two quotes from Nissim Mannathukkaren.

Random non-notable quote from a non-notable newsblog article. No quotability.

Nissim is non-notable (also has no wikipedia page).

The same quote has been pasted into many other articles like the articles Violence, Mainstream Media, Comedy, Irrationality, Modernity and Narendra Modi (which has almost 10 quotes by Nissim).

Context of the quote is not even clear, I didn't fully understood what he is talking about, but seems to be a one-sided POV take on a socio-poltical issue that is more complex than that.

This is a high level article about a neutral concept, I don't think this is the place to paste obscure and POV quotes from a non-notable person from a random newsblog article. — დამოკიდებულება (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Vote closes: 12:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep - the quotes appear to be properly sourced and pertain to the page's topic. I do not see a reason to remove them. ~ UDScott (talk) 11:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: IMHO, they (and similar ones) don't meet Quotability, especially in high level articles about a global and theoretical concept like this, and they and many similar ones could be described as spamming. But I can accept this, since I am not a deletionist or someone who likes to censor other opinions. I only wish others would also respect properly sourced quotes that pertain to the page's topic and not remove them even if they go against one's own views or for whatever "reason". --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


Political narrative

Random non-notable quotes from a non-notable newsblog article. No quotability. Suhas is non-notable.

The same quotes by Suhas has been pasted into many other articles like the articles Democracy, Social injustice, Injustice, Irrationality, Rights, Public opinion ,State,Elite, Principal–agent problem, Migrant worker and so on.

Context of the quote is not even clear, I didn't fully understood what he is talking about, but seems to be a one-sided POV take on a socio-poltical issue that is more complex than that.

This is a high level article about a theoretical concept, I don't think this is the place to paste obscure and POV quotes from a non-notable person from a random newsblog article.

Also not neutral to push an anti-Indian government POV without balance in a high level article about a neutral (and global and theoretical) concept like this. — დამოკიდებულება (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Vote closes: 12:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep - the quotes appear to be properly sourced and pertain to the page's topic. I do not see a reason to remove them. ~ UDScott (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: IMHO, they (and similar ones) don't meet Quotability, especially in high level articles about a global and theoretical concept like this, and they and many similar ones could be described as spamming. But I can accept this, since I am not a deletionist or someone who likes to censor other opinions. I only wish others would also respect properly sourced quotes that pertain to the page's topic and not remove them even if they go against one's own views or for whatever "reason". --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


Cyborg

This article was {{Prod}} because "No sourced quotes." The tag was removed without curing the defect, which brings it here. — Ningauble (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Vote closes: 22:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete as nom, without prejudice to creation of an article on this notable subject with actual, sourced quotes. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete --Saroj Uprety (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


Mwanandeke Kindembo

Contested PROD (for lack of notability). The issue remains - and the quotes appear to be from a self-published work. — UDScott (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Vote closes: 17:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. More notable second-hand reference sources have been added to the article Amisiali (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Plainly not notable. Attempt to publicize a new self-published work. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Nupur J. Sharma

Fails Wikiquote:Notability and WQ:QuotabilityAkhiljaxxn (talk) 11:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Vote closes: 12:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)