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

List of Presidents of the United States

Contested PROD. I do not see the purpose or value of this page, when we have a perfectly good category that handles the same function - and which can also be referred to on each individual page for the Presidents. — UDScott (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 20:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as creator. First off, this is a list that exists on 120 projects. It's objective in its inclusion criteria, limited in scope, all of its members are independently notable, and all have a stand-alone English Wikiquote articles. In other words, it meets the notability criteria established for lists by the English Wikipedia, and it's members are all quotable, as evidenced by the fact that they all have Wikiquote articles. That a list shares a scope with a category should be the case with all lists, and currently is true of all lists in Category:Lists as far as I can tell. If a list did not share a scope with a category, that would likely indicate that the list is not objective and meaningful in its scope, and should be looked at for deletion precisely because it doesn't fit into either any individual category, or the cross-section of any combination of categories (though the opposite is not true, and the existence of a category does necessitate that a list should be created). GMGtalk 20:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Just one comment: the comparison to other list pages is not truly a fair comparison. The other list pages have pages spread across many other categories, while this particular list exactly mirrors the mentioned category (Category:Presidents of the United States) - this particular list is so narrow in scope and has such a low amount of people in it that having it seems to be redundant to the category. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, WQ doesn't seem to actually have any local notability criteria for lists, and in as much as WQ relies on WP for guidance for major gaps in local policies and guidelines, the WP standards explicitly forbid duplication of categories, lists, and navigation templates as a rationale for deletion. GMGtalk 20:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Just a thought, but what if, as a compromise, we merge and redirect this list into split columns under the "See also" section of the President of the United States page. BD2412 T 20:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
That forces a choice between an incomplete list, or violating guidance at WQ:SEEALSO not to duplicate internal links that already appear in the body (besides the issue of being an exceptionally long section). GMGtalk 21:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I think we can bend WQ:SEEALSO to cover this. I would prefer that over deleting the list, and I'm not sure I can see a rationale for including such a list as a separate page in mainspace. BD2412 T 01:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Umm...I'm inclined to think we should be consistent one way or the other really. If we're expecting that the average reader is savvy enough with the software that they will easily see the category, know what it is, and click on it, then an extended see also is as useful as a stand alone list. I don't know that is likely to be true, as evidenced by the fact that the list on Wikipedia gets 22k average daily views, while the category gets 30 average daily views. Here, the list got 55 views on its first day, while the category gets an average of three. Although those numbers will become more meaningful over the coming days.
To my mind, having a companion page to a Wikipedia page with 22k average daily views is a fairly good rationale that this is useful for helping readers find and navigate Wikiquote. But if "no 1 to 1 overlap" is the principle we want to apply, I'd rather we just establish that so we can apply it consistently, and get more lasting benefit out of this discussion than whether a single page is deleted or kept, which is comparatively inconsequential. GMGtalk 11:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Why wouldn't you just add a single link under a See also section for the category itself (e.g. like we did on the Akira Kurosawa or Alfred Hitchcock pages)? ~ UDScott (talk) 12:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that is an option. And if we are to make it a standard to disallow lists with a 1-to-1 scope with a category, it would be a natural next step to add that to guidance for see also sections with eponymous categories. I'm of the opinion we should do all the things to interconnect the project with itself: more cats, more lists, more navigation templates, more see also sections. But that's just my personal opinion. GMGtalk 01:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Russ Bingham

No English Wikipedia article, and it's not clear there ever was, or currently could be. News search for this person gives exactly two sources ([1] [2]) and zero coverage either before or after. It doesn't appear the group of which he is supposed to be the leader is notable either. So I don't see why he should be. None of that is addressing the bit of a stretch it is to call him an activist, since these people are apparently some type of Canadian nationalist thing. — GMGtalk 20:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 21:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Actually, the same goes for David MacKinnon and Justin L. Smith. They appear to just be local members of this Canadian nationalist group. GMGtalk 20:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    • not "just" exactly, MacKinnon was covered by CBC as Ontario leader and formerly led the Sudbury group that Smith took over. Smith was covered in relation to soup kitchen debacle with police chief. What are minimum requirements? Does every person on Wikiquote require their own Wikipedia article? EphFan (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Yes, Wikiquote has a higher standard for inclusion than Wikipedia as it requires the subject to both be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and to also be quotable. It does not appear that these individuals meet this standard at this time, although if they continue to gain coverage in reliable source then they may at some point in the future. GMGtalk 20:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all three pages, per nom. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I would like to know, if these individuals are not considered notable independently, what about collectively if these were merged into a Soldiers of Odin page (since Wikipedia:Soldiers of Odin DOES exist) where it could collect any quotes made by its leaders (or about the group by people of significance)? This due to Wikiquote not only representing quotes on a per-person basis, but also on a per-topic basis. EphFan (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Psychological manipulation

None of the quotes included specifically mention the term and require too much additional context to comprehend the suggested association; the Huxley quote is a non-sequitur that doesn't even specify who is being talked about, and the ones from Bernays quotes are more about propaganda and sociology, and the one from Marcuse is about manipulation in general. Should it be inductively reasoned there would be no objection to pages for religious manipulation, economic manipulation, or sexual manipulation containing a series of quotes that don't even use the term, based on this overly specialized page? This page is effectively just an "anti-X", page, which is not how Wikiquote is organized; nor do we have "psychology of X" pages. — CensoredScribe (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 17:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand the logic of the argument. There is a wikipedia page w:Psychological manipulation and the quotations in the Wikiquote article are related to the topic as it is described on the wikipedia page. The VfD should take place on Wikipedia. ~ Peter1c (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Biographies of Karl Marx is not a page we need even though it is a fine Wikipedia page consisting of a list of page links, similarly we don't need filmography of director or actor pages, I'm sure you would agree as much. It's not just lists that make for bad Wikipedia pages to transfer onto Wikiquote though: do we both not agree that Race of Jesus is a bad idea for a Wikiquote page even though there's plenty of quotes on that Wikipedia page? There's a Wikipedia page for Jesus in Islam as well, yet I expect X religious figure in Y religion pages are not very welcome here, I've not checked the deletion logs but I believe others will concur with me on that. I don't particularly like the fact that we have pages for inane details about individuals like Religious views of Adolf Hitler and Depictions of Muhammad either, regardless of the number of quotes on the Wikipedia pages for them, but I'd prefer not to have multiple VFD discussions going at the same time given how long it often takes for even one of them to close. I won't contest having a page for the Holy Grail or any other religious relics but this starts to get a bit problematic in terms of ease of access if everyone has to know the exact phraseology and page titles begin to approach the length of whole sentences. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

CensoredScribe, each Wikipedia page has a notable topic. If not, the VfD should be pursued on Wikipedia. If the topic is notable and the quotes are relevant to the topic, then what is the issue? ~ Peter1c (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I was specifically told by UDScott not to make a page for Male pregnancy, despite that being a Wikipedia page. Were I to do so, I doubt using your argument here would be effective in forcing the vote off site onto Wikipedia, which, by the way, isn't where we hold votes for Wikiquote, FYI. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Violence in media

Like Male pregnancy, there is a Wikipedia page for this topic, and like male pregnancy, we really don't need a page for this here. Creating X in media pages is a bad idea, considering how difficult it is to define media or violence outside of the direct usage of those words. Do textbooks about wars or surgery count at violence in media, blood is certainly shed in them; should we transfer the many quotes that criticize religious texts for violence to this page? This is a fairly recent term, and I was told by the page's creator we should be focusing on quotes that have "withstood the test of time" and proved their "endurance factor", which combined with how little effort the page's creator put into creating this, suggests they really don't particularly care and created this page impulsively one day using my contributions, without even bothering to look for all the relevant ones, despite being a frequent page watcher of mine. I would never have made this, just to self nom and prove a point about not needing this page, but because I didn't actually make this page that is what I am doing. — CensoredScribe (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 17:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. CensoredScribe has collected excellent quotations in this article and now nominated it for deletion. For specialized topics, standard of quotability is usefulness to researchers on the topic, the intended audience. Users reading the corresponding wikipedia article will be glad to have these references. This article is linked and gets ~ 80 views per day. Topic is notable. Quotes on specialized topics are valuable to researchers on the topic and to visitors of the corresponding Wikipedia page. It is a good page. I hope we can keep it. ~ Peter1c (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Medicine in Star Trek

Well normally a page for a specific fictional character, much less profession, would be taken to qvfd, unless that character appears on at least two other shows/comics. I'm guessing no further explanation is needed? — CensoredScribe (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 21:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep: Notability of topic is established by existence of corresponding Wikipedia article. ~ Peter1c (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

This will probably be the last time I nominate anything for Vfd given the geological time scales involved here, however "Wikipedia did it" is a terrible reasoning and every single administrator here knows it. I really shouldn't have to explain to you of all people why having a page for Lightsabers or The One Ring opens up the flood gates to a sewer of pop culture pages we don't need, regardless of how many media studies journals have articles about a particular element of a fictional work. The page you created for LGBT in science fiction television lets me know this is a knee jerk reaction to not getting your way on something. More importantly Peter1c, I'm concerned about how your one-liner canned response of a reason is going to apply to actually important pages we don't need, like mulatto, and the rest of the rainbow of racist terminology for combinations of incalculable Blood quanta and stations of the colonial casta system, which I'm assuming you'd now claim you have no problem with, "Cause Wikipedia". If you really and truly would prefer I ramble with you here about the importance or lack there of of the minutia of X pop culture franchises more obscure features that we both know you hate for diverting attention from religion/literature, I will gladly join you in polluting this wiki with thousands of nerd articles from the depths of Wikipedia, than debate them with you on this off topic soapbox with an extremely limited audience of people willing to waste their time listening to you playing opposites day and me be a snide critic, that's what I do for Uncyclopedia, amongst other things like nominate terrible ideas for pages for vfd. At least on Uncyclopedia, unlike here, 5 people will actually bother to vote in a week, even if it's for a page about poop jokes. I have the feeling after about 10 of these types of articles turn vfd into an unreadable series of rants, one if not both of us will be up for a ban, you are acting in a way that is highly disruptive and others can quote your sources, we are both replaceable as editors. Playing bizarre and impulsive head games with you is not what I came here to do, and I doubt it's what you came here to do either. I bid you good day sir. CensoredScribe (talk) 05:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Garfield Gets Real

Transcripts of scenes from the movie that make no sense out of context. — Trivialist (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 17:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, if trimmed to just the Garfield quote - I agree the dialogue quotes don't make much sense outside the context of the movie. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Harold Wallace Rosenthal

The only content here is an antisemitic fabrication which cannot be plausibly attributed to Rosenthal. Wikiquote should not be a vehicle for antisemitic theories. Since there is no famous actual quote by rosenthal, I request the deletion.
As I am not a Wikiquote regular, please be kind if I proceeded incorrectly. For the record, I was the one who changed the section label from "disputed" to "fabricated", based on info from wikipedia and other sources. — GrandEscogriffe (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 18:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Keep: you don't need actual verified quotes from a person, notes on disputed/misattributed/fabricated ones would be enough. I haven't seen 'fabricated' before, would you object to changing that to 'misattibuted'? That's what I usually see. this April 2019 article refers to the documen. It IS a famous fabrication, and a quote from SOMEONE. Probably not Rosenthal, but without knowing who actually wrote it, putting it under the person it's attributed to is the only logical place for it. Olivia comet (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Scarlet Jei Saoirse

Contested PROD for not having valid sources for the quotes - the only source listed is this person's imdb page. This is not a valid source as any imdb user can post quotes without citation. — UDScott (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 16:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless validly sourced quotes are provided. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete because IMDB is not a reliable source for quotations. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Donald Trump on social media

This is quite a step beyond using low quality sources on a biography of a living person. It is an entire article dedicated to reprinting someone's Facebook and Twitter feed. It is not "Donald Trump on social media", as in "Donald Trump opines on the market capitalization of Facebook, the prospects of an IPO for Twitter, and the effect that Whatsapp has on telecommunications access in the developing world," as one might expect from William Shakespeare quotes about death. It is literally just "random crap Donald Trump posted online."

Wikiquote is not a venue for reprinting social media, and WQ:BLP doesn't mean we create separate articles for Ellen DeGeneres' Twitter feed and Katy Perry's Instagram. GMGtalk 12:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 13:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. Trump conducts state business on Twitter. For instance, quotes like
    • "I must, in the strongest of terms, ask Mexico to stop this onslaught - and if unable to do so I will call up the U.S. Military and CLOSE OUR SOUTHERN BORDER!"
    • "please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow...... ....Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military."
    • "if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have..... ....targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD."
  • should not be removed merely because they were posted to social media. If there's really a policy against quoting a world leader's social media, that policy needs to change. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. I understand the point GreenMeansGo is making - and I would not like to see a similar page created for most other people. But I agree with Robin Lionheart that Donald Trump seems to be an exception to this, as he uses Twitter on a daily basis to conduct business and communicate with the world. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. Since his posts in social media are "official statements by the president of the United States." Ellen DeGeneres and Katy Perry don't hold that position, atleast not yet. If someday in the future they become POTUS and their social media posts are also considered official statements then that could merit the creation of those articles. On the "random crap", this was also common in US politics before social media. Rupert Loup 02:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)