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.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. --Saroj (talk) 06:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Last words in Soul Eater

To a degree this is a test case for a number of "Last words in ..." pages. It is a subpage of a notable subject but I have severe concerns over whether it is necessary or even harmful. Especially as it is not precisely referenced and gives editors to embellish there own description of gory deaths. My reading of the intent of policies and guidelines is content is not censored care needs to be taken to avoid harm and going into that which would generally be regarded as unacceptable. I suggest articles such as these, which are concentrated on descriptions of violent killings, may be potentially harmful. — DeirgeDel^t_a^c 07:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 08:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Delete: (nominator) -- DeirgeDel^t_a^c 07:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: per nom; also complete lack of quotability. Markjoseph125 (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Neither notable nor quotable. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: While I am not sure that we need these pages of Last words in X, I completely disagree with the reasoning of this nomination. Should a page that is deemed "harmful" by a single user (or a few that have voted as well) be subject to deletion? IMHO this seems too much like censorship, simply because a few do not like the quotes. But, as I indicated, I am also not convinced we need these pages anyway, as they often become bloated with single word quotes or other less than memorable lines. To that end, I could see them removed, but not for the reason cited - that the quotes themselves are somehow harmful and should not have a place here. ~ UDScott (talk) 11:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further comments: I am not a fan of the Last words... pages if only because they often consist of less than memorable quotes and I would rather see anything that is remotely memorable be moved to the page for the work and these pagers removed. However, as I already stated, I cannot support the reason given in this nomination: namely that quotes deemed harmful by a user be deleted. This reasoning contradicts what this project stands for - the presentation of quotes without censorship. I fear that it is a slippery slope whereby other quotes or pages might be removed simply because someone does not like the presented quotes. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@UDScott: In my opinion a lot of these sprawl of dialog pages have already not only gone down the slippery slope but into the gutter and on into the sewer. Many are by non-collaborating SPA/AnonIP's who burn much community resource keeping their unverifiable fansites in order. Voices debate whether a bullet in my head is needed to prove the point. I certainly have been and am harmfully mentally stressed by a store holdup and the video here which has seriously impacted me.But the concentration of death is where a line needs to be drawn if it is not of the highest quality. For example I have little issue, though perhaps sometimes I should, with a high end art gallery; but more with a smutty seedy pornographic shop. The equivalent here is if a quote and context is supported by being identified by a secondary/tertiary RS then it is at the high scale and will appropriately standout; but it is primary only and supported only otherwise by the contributor then it is more of an issue. Plus these quotes have other pages where they can be placed and will stand out appropriately (with no need for shouting and bolding) if they have the quality. And if they do not have quality they can be relatively harmlessly lost in forest of similar dialog. -- DeirgeDel^t_a^c 07:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge into Soul Eater --ᘙ (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've no real objection to a merge providing the redirect is removed. As in this use case the only contributor is an IP that isn't too much of a problem providing the person does the merge does not attribute as their own work by means of an appropriate comment in the summary. That said the general feeling is the quality of quote here is low so the value of merge is minimal. In all events there is a consensus not to keep this article in its current form. -- DeirgeDel^t_a^c 22:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

delete Ahh, a fan cruft article. Lemonaka (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge and redirect to Soul Eater. This is a very short page, and there is no reason to expect that merging it into the parent page would cause the sort of imbalance that many of the better thought "Last words in..." pages achieve. I would not at all consider this a test case for any number of "Last words in ..." pages, as they tend to be much lengthier, and their inclusion tends to be much more in line with the interest of sources in reporting the last words of characters in notable broad-ranging fictional settings. BD2412 T 05:47, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Some of the "quotes" aren't from Soul Eater; they're made up quotes by Nate Speed/SoulEaterFan-- in fact, these quotes were either not spoken in the actual episodes or tied to nonexistent episodes-- and given the track record of the user who created the page in question, I wouldn't be surprised. 03isrflo62410 (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: no consensus. --Saroj (talk) 06:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Last words in The Sopranos media

My reading of the intent of policies and guidelines is content is not censored care needs to be taken to avoid harm and going into that which would generally be regarded as unacceptable. I suggest articles such as these, which are concentrated on descriptions of violent killings, may be potentially harmful. There's no directly associated English Wikipedia article. Beyond that generic issue the references here are primary. Citations are to episode level only and not to point in time - watching a whole episode (sometimes of profanity) to verify a source is not really practicable. While there are claims "Wikiquote is uncensored" that is not totally true as the line is drawn at some content. Descriptions are the editors own and Wikiquote may simply be being used as a platform for editors to push profanity and their descriptions of death. It is also a reason why younger persons may be put off from the sight, children should not be directed to Wikiquote, and why the UK Government may correctly or otherwise implement the Online Safety Bill and restrict access to Wikiquote. See also this VfD — DeirgeDel^t_a^c 09:03, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 10:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Delete: (nominator). -- DeirgeDel^t_a^c 09:03, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. As I wrote in this VfD, I do not support the removal of quotes or pages simply because they may be deemed harmful by users. This definitely has the appearance of selective censorship. I also do not believe that the proposed level of citation is required - we have never required an actual timestamp within a TV show's episode to which to cite a quote. In the end, I still harbor some doubts about these Last words pages, but not for these reasons, but rather that the pages tend to become full of one word quotes or other less than memorable lines. There are some truly memorable last lines from films and TV shows and books, but too often, these pages go way beyond those. In this case, I cannot agree with the cited reason for deletion, but will consider my own reasons before voting. ~ UDScott (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: By this logic, the Breaking Bad last words page or the X-Files last words page or the Walking Dead last words page should be taken down too. If you apply one rule to one page because you happen to be uncomfortable with the subject matter, you must apply the same rule to all the other pages. SebastianJFromTheBurg (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am aware of about ten to 20 pages like this page, which is not the worst example of its genre by a long way. There is an argument the concentration of death quotes is harmful. It will not affect most people. But it has a possibility of fueling it with a small minority. I notice a stream of mass shootings at the moment. Although the article is not within the scope of QLP I note from WQ:QLP "The possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." It is not as if the quotes haven't already got an article where they can be placed, if they are quotable enough. -- DeirgeDel^t_a^c 20:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, this has the appearance of censorship just because someone deems the quotes themselves harmful. IMHO, our mission here is not to only present quotes that do not bother people - we do not censor quotes. If the discussion is regarding the quoteworthiness of the quotes, then an argument could be made against some of the quotes on the page - but I fear that if this or similar pages were deleted simply for the reason that the quotes are deemed harmful by a handful of users, then we would be setting a dangerous precedent, where quotes could be removed for other similar "harms" that users feel. I believe this would cause irreparable harm to this project. ~ UDScott (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is the concentration that is a problem and the lack of verification that is a problem. There is a considerable hijacking of project in this area by people using it as an excuse to present this. And you I recommend Wikiquote to an under-13, under-15 under-18 because of it. Its not as if these are supported by third party references. This (poor referenced) genre is fit for a fan-site. And these is nothing here which stops the quotes being added to other pages. -- DeirgeDel^t_a^c 01:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete -- 2601:5c7:4100:3600:cfd:9886:ceda:ebb9 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 7 May 2023‎ .—This unsigned comment is by 2601:5C7:4100:3600:4DCC:7D12:2A55:C0C3 (talk • contribs) .
Move or merge into The Sopranos. --ᘙ (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, or at the very least, merge. Markjoseph125 (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge only the quoteworthy ones into the relevant episode on the correct season page for The Sopranos. Notwithstanding my comments above on what I believe is an incorrect rationale for deletion, I still feel these quotes are mostly not worth keeping. Any that are can be placed in the correct episode from which they come. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Leaning keep. The question is, does this serve the reader? For a reader who specifically looks up a page of Sopranos media last words, it does so exactly, providing context for this information. Last words of fictional characters are a cultural touchstone, and are better presented in Wikiquote than anywhere else, so if there is a need for a test case on whether these should exist, it should start with the strongest example, Last words in Shakespeare. The fact that this particular set of last words is particularly violent is of no weight as an argument. The Sopranos as a show is violence, and plenty of that violence is reflected in our page on the show without even getting to last words. In this case, there is no contention about the accuracy of the contents, and it is likely that the coverage of the show would yield sources if those were requested. BD2412 T 05:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

SoulEaterFan articles

Soul Eater: Seasons 1-15
Soul Eater: Seasons 16-Current
Articles are related to the persistent spam/vandalism by rampant IP addresses that go by the name "SoulEaterFan", a name I frequently see on articles such as The Amazing World of Gumball, Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends, and several seasons of SpongeBob SquarePants, among others. This user's edits can be identified by the random assortment of characters from various series that have nothing to do with Soul Eater, including South Park, the aforementioned Gumball, Regular Show, Kill la Kill, etc. Furthermore, these pages are filled to the brim with fake content (compare these two season articles to the actual Soul Eater episode list on Wikipedia), uncivil language, and other assortments of vandalism. 03isrflo62410 (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 16:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Delete both: Agree generally with proposer and note contributors of these articles do not typicall engage constructively with the community. Utlimately per sitelinking these is are poor grade unveriable duplicate of the Soul Eater (manga) subject. -- DeirgeDel^t_a^c 17:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, per above. Markjoseph125 (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: The nominator has made this change to the nomination and that is a practice I really dislike especially after !votes have been cast or comments made unless necessary to correct minor grammar error or to correct a serious error where the change should probably be made obvious by strikethrough. In my view the changes should been added on as an additional comment but in this case its probably better to leave as is in my opinion. -- DeirgeDel^t_a^c 23:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: SoulEaterFan is back with a vengeance, and has spammed two different articles (Fictional last words in animated television series and Regular Show (season 4)). The edits are similar to the (various) other IP addresses that have spammed the former article with the same fake Gumball quote. Furthermore, on the edit histories of both articles, they are begging to not be deemed as SoulEaterFan, in spite of all the edits they have done. I bring this up because this user is seriously making me mad, and this constant Gumball spam needs to stop. 03isrflo62410 (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: @03isrflo62410:: The Vfd-new notices has not been correctly applied to these articles and they are not pointing to this discussion. I might try to resolve later. There's also an issue with these apparently having become de-sitelinked from wikidata. -- DeirgeDel^t_a^c 06:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've fixed {{Vfd-new}} here & here. Anyone spotting this with any sense would have checked WQ:VFD and found it there or raised an issue elsewhere or simply fixed it so there is probably no need to extend this for a further 7 days, especially as there is always DRV for anyone who feels aggrieved. -- DeirgeDel^t_a^c 07:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional comment: I received word from Lemonaka that this "SoulEaterFan" user in question is actually Nate Speed, [user with a notorious track record outside of Wikipedia.] Essentially, leaving these two articles up will (probably) allow Nate to continue spamming pages with the constant Soul Eater nonsense. 03isrflo62410 (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Charles L. Griswold

No Wikipedia article. No quotes by him. — Markjoseph125 (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 20:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC). Markjoseph125 (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as nominator. Markjoseph125 (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete due to a lack of quotes and a Wikipedia article. 03isrflo62410 (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete If he holds a named chair at BU, he is eligible for a Wikipedia article per NAcademic. But the only remotely quotable quote here is the ungrammatical "Make sure the person whom you think wronged you is the person who wronged you." Not really enough for an article, IMO. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: There are quotes by him. and There are many wikiquote articles without wikipedia articles, so "No Wikipedia article" is not a good argument. Y-S.Ko (talk) 06:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, "no Wikipedia article" is one of the main reasons to delete a Wikiquote page for non-notability; the few Wikiquote pages I've created for people who didn't have Wikipedia articles have been uniformly questioned by the powers that be. Markjoseph125 (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak keep: I'm pretty borderline on this. I think Y-S.Ko has done just about enough to save it. As fair as I can tell there's shedload of professors at BU so that wouldn't save him. His Estonian Wikipedia article (why ET I ask myself?) automatically provides a wikidata item, as would the VIAF article. There's a good spread of references. -- DeirgeDel^t_a^c 10:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Talmud Unmasked

Lack of referencing and no associated English Wikipedia article on a claimed controversial book. The link to the author on the English Wikipedia does not exist. This leaves us with the issue the creator can place or even platform their own unverifiable commentary and select and bolden the quotes they choose on a controversial subject. Wikiquote welcomes all views but there are concerns if a contributor may be using Wikiquote to promote their viewpoint. — DeirgeDel^t_a^c 22:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 23:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Keep. The book does have an associated Wikipedia page: The Talmud Unmasked. Many of the quotes are verifiably authentic and can be sourced with links to Sefaria.org. At the present time, though, the page employs a nonstandard quoting style and is in need of cleanup. I would therefore add a cleanup tag, convert the page to standard quoting style, and where possible add links for sourceable quotes. Update: It is to be noted that the book contains factual inaccuracies (see below). – BurningLibrary
Delete The book itself is noted for being a misleading misrepresentation of the Talmud. It is problematic for Wikiquote to showcase, as if they were real translations from the Talmud, a mistranslated collection cherry-picked by the book's author for antisemitic purposes. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"It is problematic for Wikiquote to showcase …" It sets a bad precedent if one cannot quote from certain works because someone deems them to be "problematic" or "offensive". History is full of offensive truths, and censorship is not the way to deal with that. One cannot construct a category of "problematic" works which are not to be quoted from without turning Wikiquote into a censorious zone. That outcome is so disastrously bad that we should do everything in our power to avoid it. Better, then, to permit this book to be quoted from in some capacity, than to attempt to airbrush it out of history. As for the issue of potential mistranslation, this can be dealt with by cross-referencing the quotes with the William Davidson translation, which is available for free on Sefaria.org. – BurningLibrary

My objecgtion is not to offensive material but to having wikivoice misrepresent this particular material as a "translation" of the Talmud. HouseOfChange (talk) 06:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, how the material is presented is a matter of how the description is worded, of course. That description can be edited to better represent the work for what it is. Update: See also my reply to ᘙ below.

However, while the word "mistranslation" has been used a number of times in this discussion, I am not quite sure what is really meant by it here. Take, for example, Pranaitis' translation of Keritot 6b:19–20 (p. 49):

"The teaching of the Rabbis is: He who pours oil over a Goi, and over dead bodies is freed from punishment. This is true for an animal because it is not a man. But how can it be said that by pouring oil over a Goi one is freed from punishment, since a Goi is also a man? But this is not true, for it is written: Ye are my flock, the flock of my pasture are men (Ezechiel, XXXIV, 31). You are thus called men, but the Goim are not called men."

For comparison, here is the William Davidson translation of Keritot 6b:19–20:

"But if one applies anointing oil to gentiles why is he exempt? Aren't they included in the meaning of the term person [adam]? The Gemara explains: Indeed they are not. As it is written: 'And you My sheep, the sheep of My pasture, are people [adam]' (Ezekiel 34:31), from which it is derived that you, the Jewish people, are called adam, but gentiles are not called adam."

What, exactly, is being mistranslated here? Isn't the same essential message conveyed by both Pranaitis and Davidson?

For context, the William Davidson translation is available in its entirety from Sefaria.org, which is a Jewish non-profit organization dedicated to making Jewish knowledge available for everyone. If it is granted that the William Davidson translation is an accurate rendition of Keritot 6b:19–20, can't we just leave it at that? Why speak of "mistranslation" at all if this is what the Talmud really says? We should, at the very least, be able to agree upon the verifiable facts of the matter. – BurningLibrary

Keep: Now that the key issues are addressed and the lead section can be verified against the vetted linked :enWP article. While I do sometimes help out less experienced editors it is my view that experienced editors should do this themselves especially for anything that may be contentious. Thankyou. DeirgeDel^t_a^c 00:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. I am not familiar with the book, but it seems to be a compendium of quotes, a selection of quotes from the Talmud. Why should we write articles consisting of selected quotes from a book that already consists of selected quotes from the Talmud? If there are verfiable, notable and quotable quotes they could be added to Talmud with a reliable translation. And if a mistranslation should be notable, they could be added to the Misattributed or Mistranslated section. Our article "Wikiquote" also does not consist of selected quotes from various Wikiquote articles, but of quotes about Wikiquote. I will change my vote to keep if quotes about the book are added. --ᘙ (talk) 13:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a good point. The book can be judged notable because it has an article. However in this sort of example I personally suspect it would perhaps usually be used is to select quotes from the original work. Of course in this case that selection would probably be a biased collection. Thankyou. -- DeirgeDel^t_a^c 15:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For what it's worth, the entire book is available in PDF format from the Internet Archive. This might be of help in deciding upon best practices for quoting from works like this. – BurningLibrary
@BurningLibrary:: I give up. I've been looking high and low for it there and have kept missing it - albeit its not registered on openlibrary and I might not have done an internet library search. I actually had switched focus looking at/for copies/editions of the Talmud itself! Great find. I really like to arrogantly think that I'm usually very good and finding sources and its good to be taken down a peg or two. I really impressed how some who edit on ancient religious quotes have responded and contributed on this VfD! -- DeirgeDel^t_a^c 00:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are welcome. I have added a link to the Internet Archive on the Wikiquote page and on the Wikipedia page. – BurningLibrary

@ᘙ: "I will change my vote to keep if quotes about the book are added." I have added a "Quotes about …" section and added a quote from an entry in Antisemitism: A Historical Encyclopedia of Prejudice and Persecution, Volume 1. This might help address concerns raised by another participant in this discussion about how the work is presented. The "Notes" section of the Wikipedia article provides some references which might be relevant here, but sadly, all of them are unquoted. Update: I have added a brief quotation from Antisemitism to the Wikipedia article as well. – BurningLibrary
Keep Article has improved from earlier version and includes an about section. --ᘙ (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete for reasons given by others. Markjoseph125 (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. Here follows a brief summary of changes made to the page as they pertain to concerns raised by participants in this discussion. In its current version, the page does not quote from the Talmud at all; instead, it quotes Pranaitis' commentary on it and related texts. Quotes that only quote from the Talmud have been moved to the talk page, with the suggestion that such quotes should only be included if they also contain some of Pranaitis' own perspective. – BurningLibrary

Comment. I have established that the book contains factual inaccuracies. On page 82 of the E. N. S. edition, Pranaitis attributes to the Avodah Zarah tractate a phrase that occurs in the Soferim tractate. I have commented upon this inaccuracy in the description section of the page, as well as in the quotes section.

Another participant in this discussion, HouseOfChange, has expressed concern that the book misrepresents the subject matter. This point is now strengthened. While I still think the page should be kept, I think the main focus of the page should be to point out inaccuracies and warn against using the book as a source for anything other than itself.

I found two quotes from the book on the Talmud page, and have moved them to the The Talmud Unmasked page with the justification that the book contains errors. This justification is easier to make when the errors are documented somewhere. This may be counted as a reason for keeping the page.

My recommendation would be that the book is subjected to the same "containment policy" as Henry Ford's book, i.e., that all quotes from the book are collected on a single page and that the book is not quoted from on other pages. Possibly, a template could be created for such cases. In the final analysis, while the book does have some historical significance, it is not a good source. BurningLibrary (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestion. I think the best approach would be to create a page for Justinas Pranaitis and make a subsection for The Talmud Unmasked on that page, with The Talmud Unmasked redirecting to the subsection. This would make it possible to provide further context in the form of quotes about and of Pranaitis, including this remarkable exchange from the Beilis trial:

Q: What is the meaning of the word Hullin [animals permissible as food]?

Pranaitis: I don't know.

Q: What is the meaning of the word Erubin [Sabbath walking limits]?

Pranaitis: I don't know.

Q: What is the meaning of the word Yebamot [family relationships]?

Pranaitis: I don't know.

Q: When did Baba Batra [a tractate of the Talmud] live and what was her activity?

Pranaitis: I don't know.

I think this speaks volumes. BurningLibrary (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a very good idea from BurningLibrary (talk · contributions). The idiosyncratic translations and the point-y selection of passages result in a work that has more to do with Panaitis than with the Talmud itself. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very well. I have created the page Justinas Pranaitis and added quotes from The Talmud Unmasked and the Beilis trial. I have also added a merge template to The Talmud Unmasked. The merge can be carried out by creating a redirect from The Talmud Unmasked to Justinas Pranaitis#The Talmud Unmasked (1892). BurningLibrary (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update. I have carried out the proposed merge. The The Talmud Unmasked page is now a redirect to Justinas Pranaitis#The Talmud Unmasked (1892). BurningLibrary (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. This issue might be closed as the The Talmud Unmasked page is no more; it redirects to Justinas Pranaitis, which attempts to present the subject matter in a more factually grounded way. BurningLibrary (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To whom it may concern: the Wikipedia page Justinas Pranaitis now contains, in its "External links" section, a link to the Wikiquote page Justinas Pranaitis. BurningLibrary (talk) 12:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood

Contested PROD for unreferenced with no reason. The contestation links to a notable voiceover artist but there is no linked article on the English Wikipeida. No indicators of notability of subject. — DeirgeDel^t_a^c 03:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 04:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC).

Delete: (nominator). -- DeirgeDel^t_a^c 03:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete for lack of memorable quotes. NOTE: I'm not sure I understand the reasons cited in the nomination though - there is a page for this show on Wikipedia and the listed quotes are referenced by episode. I am not disputing the notability of the show, but am voting due to the lack of quality in the quotes. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per HEY after cleanup. The en-wiki article is start-class, not a stub. The show ran from 2012-2022 and won a Daytime Emmy in 2019.[1] HouseOfChange (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete for lack of quotability. Markjoseph125 (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Daniel Larze

Unreliably sourced, questionable notability. None of the quotes listed are backed up by the sources. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 22:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nomination. People who want a Wikiquote page put up should do a better job to make it look professional. Markjoseph125 (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. --Saroj (talk) 07:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

William Henry Duryea

There appears to be a lack of notability. The link is not to a Wikipedia page (one does not exist for this person), but to Wikidata, which does not confer any level of notability to this person. The provided quotes are not memorable in any way, nor do they seem to point to any special qualities or notability for this person either. — UDScott (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 15:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Delete. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. I left a note at the talk page of editor who created this article and two others now at AfD. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. --Saroj (talk) 07:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Max N. Lindauer

There appears to be a lack of notability. The link is not to a Wikipedia page (one does not exist for this person), but to Wikidata, which does not confer any level of notability to this person. The provided quotes are not memorable in any way, nor do they seem to point to any special qualities or notability for this person either. — UDScott (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 15:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Delete. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. --Saroj (talk) 07:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Abraham Kershaw

There appears to be a lack of notability. The link is not to a Wikipedia page (one does not exist for this person), but to Wikidata, which does not confer any level of notability to this person. The provided quotes are not memorable in any way, nor do they seem to point to any special qualities or notability for this person either. — UDScott (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 16:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Delete. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Robin Loup (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. No expectation that there will be quotes by the subject, and they are clearly not notable as subject of quotes. BD2412 T 04:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.