Wikiquote:Votes for deletion

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

Beano Video

Lack of notability (already deleted once for this) and unmemorable quotes. — 67.218.18.234 (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Vote closes: 00:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete. ~ 67.218.18.234 (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment – Quotability is weak, but perhaps not unusually so for a children's comic. Notability is very weak (the only source at Wikipedia is imdb), as is common for direct-to-video productions. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


Yoshihide Suga

Contested PROD. Obviously a notable person, but none of the quotes have sources. — UDScott (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Vote closes: 15:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, unless properly sourced quotes are provided. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Keep, now that sourced quotes are listed. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
  • @UDScott: It's not much, but I have sourced one of the quotes and added another sourced quote. BD2412 T 06:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Also, keep as improved, and likely able to be improved further. BD2412 T 07:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


The Northside Show (season 9)

Contested PROD for lack of notability. The problem remains. — UDScott (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Vote closes: 02:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Same reason as UDScott. DawgDeputy (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


The Northside Show (season 10)

Contested PROD for lack of notability. The problem remains. — UDScott (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Vote closes: 02:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete. With UDScott on this one. DawgDeputy (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Question: There are 3 (I think?) pages named The Northside Show (season x), where x=9,10,11. Why is 11 not nominated for deletion? Just curious to find out more about this area of WQ. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
You are correct in that, should this page be deemed worthy of deletion, the other pages should also be deleted. At the time of nomination, this one had been given a PROD tag, which was removed, bringing it here. It was an oversight that the other pages were not also nominated at that time. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


Project Storm (TV series)

Contested PROD for lack of notability. The problem remains (and I cannot find any listing of such a show). — UDScott (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Vote closes: 15:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Do not delete. Such a show exists, as shown here. Even if it's not notable, it should still be given SOME light, as with The Northside Show. 2603:6080:A700:1C39:30CC:E421:EF80:267 14:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. Furthermore, the IP vandal (who has recently been blocked) provided invalid sources. DawgDeputy (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


Nikita Vasilyevich Smirnov

Unremarkable subject; potential self-promotion — Jamie7687 (talk) 14:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Vote closes: 15:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete, appears to lack notability. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment This was a contested speedy deletion, but the user who removed the db template (User:Smirnovnikita) may have a conflict of interest and inappropriately blanked this page, and I still think the item meets CSD for unremarkable subject. --Jamie7687 (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)




Template:Db-meta

Useless template that has been created by a well-known cross-wiki vandal. — JavaHurricane 08:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

See also the following pages created by this same IP.
Some of these templates, such as Imbox, may have uses; but others may not. I daresay it would be better if all these templates were discussed for their use, so that all the templates without use can be removed. JavaHurricane 08:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Also noting that Template:Imbox seems to be useful, and hence I have not tagged it for deletion. JavaHurricane 08:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Delete, useless template cruft having been identified, it should be removed so that people's time is not wasted by it in the future. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Vote closes: 09:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Nitin Pujari

Doesn't appear to be notable. May also be cross-wiki spam as it was moved back into draftspace on Wikipedia for being promotional and not notable. — Ferien (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I am not sure that this is spam. With all due respect to enwiki seems like the draft was deleted after the creator asked for help at the Teahouse(?)
See: w:Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1140#Help_with_draft Ottawahitech (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
@Ottawahitech: I've just checked and that account was blocked a sockpuppet (as seen by w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pcmishradigital) and was later globally locked. --Ferien (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. Wikipedia article was deleted, Wikimedia category is at CfD and empty of any files. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Vote closes: 21:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Chevron Corporation

Not one notable quote, page is coatrack of editorializing about Steven Donziger , another article also created by same banned editor. (Two different accounts, but the same editor, now banned for abusing multiple accounts. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Vote closes: 01:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Steven Donziger

REASONING Not one notable quote, page is coatrack of editorializing about Donziger's dispute with Chevron Corporation, another article also created by same banned editor. (Two different accounts, but the same editor, now banned for abusing multiple accounts.) Even if you agree that Chevron behaved very badly to Donziger, disguising an editorial link farm as a Wikiquote article is wrong. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Vote closes: 01:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


Foreword: (Please ask yourself - What makes it fake? Nothing other than HOC's word. He is very aggressively pushing his POV here. He is very clearly using fair words in a vain attempt cloak his foul deeds. Beware!) HOC wrote:

FakeWikipedia

Fake Wikipedia articles where one-sided opinions are presented as facts. Blocked POV-pushing editors created all these. Not one notable quote among them, nor is there likely to be on these topics. — HouseOfChange (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Vote closes: 23:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The socks created some articles that can be rescued by adding good quotes. But these "fake Wikipedia articles," we should delete, because the topics are not suited to Wikiquote:

Blocked user Om777om has not been shown by Checkuser to be the same as the socks above, but he created 3 articles in this category that were later edited by the socks.

I apologize in advance if I'm not making this complex suggestion correctly. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, delete them all. I think doing these as a group is the best way to handle this problem. Antandrus (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Oppose:
  • I am not familiar with the term Fake Wikipedia articles
  • To my knowledge we do not delete pages because "the topics are not suited to Wikiquote"
Comment: I doubt anyone will check carefully all the articles the OP has suggested in one swift stroke of the keyboard, but hope the deleting admin will Ottawahitech (talk) 04:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
@Ottawahitech: Real Wikipedia articles achieve NPOV by relying on fact-checked RS before making assertions. These articles use quote selection, images, and bolding to imply that one point of view is endorsed by wikivoice. I have spent hours trying to improve other "sock" articles, where the topic is deep enough to inspire notable quotes. Wikiquote has an article on Crimes against humanity, it doesn't need one for Crimes Against Humanity Initiative . And so on. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Keep them all! Those are exellent pages that all who inquire should know about. Why hide or cover-up the truth? Do you calling for deletion wish to help tyrants and harm the people? It is sad that so many are so very afraid of the truth and want to hide it. They should be sent to the doctor's office. They should be advised that truth is the people's best friend and the worst enemy of tyrants. Real winners never lie and liars never win. Bless their hearts, eventually they'll know what i mean and see that hiding the truth is very wrong and that it will eventually set us all free! 66.190.126.146 17:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep United States embargo against Cuba, a notable topic that can likely be improved by adding quotes reflecting other perspectives; delete the rest, as the topics covered are on a smaller scale or are less cohesive as topics. BD2412 T 07:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
    Some may want to consider that this particular page has clearly had significantly more interest than the others, as reflected below:

    1) Information Warfare Community, Created 8 Apr 2022, total pageviews: 450; 17 days; Avg pageviews per day: 26
    The topic is extremely relevant to the current events, as nearly everyone witnesses the actions of this group, once known as the "Information Dominance Corps". ~anon 24.214.70.31 22:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

This deletion attempt is a scam

Please Keep All these articles for the benefit of the present and future generations. The pages fit into the broadminded, anti-jerk wikipedia vision that promoted by Jimbo Wales, and should not be censored. HOC's heavy handed attempts to dominate information here calling for deletion of these articles, and his deceptive use of words is clearly a sham & should be so recognized. These articles were all approved, years ago in some cases, and months ago in others by regular admins and bureaucrats here. The articles have valid quotes, have father WP pages, and include multiple, some would say very informative/telling views and opinions, from multiple, educated, notable, thoughtful people, and are presented as QUOTATIONS, not facts. HOC's absurd claim that "one-sided opinions are presented as facts is ridiculous, and is NOT supported by the facts at hand. It should also be noted that HOC's constant derogatory references to other volunteer editors speak more about him than those whom he targets. Strong leadership, would warn him against breaking the rules here, and give him a significant pause to reflect. Apparently He is the biggest disruption here ever. Be careful not to fall under his spell. Thinkers should remember that there are many professors and students of the "Art of Deception" in our government. Although they may have good intentions, they should be recognized whenever possible for what they are, so you can consciously avoid falling into their traps like the unquestioning/gullible masses.

Everyone here should know that lying, manipulating, and cheating for any reason is wrong. Those who don't know, do not deserve to have any power over others. Responsible adults who see this should take stand for what you think is right. Stand for the growth, development, & the integrity of wikiquotes. If you want to run around mindlessly, barking like a rat terrier hell bent on barking up a storm, that's your right too. Thank you47.48.129.234 17:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  • I support freedom of expression. A lot of people I disagree with also support freedom of expression. If that's controversial, then someone will have to explain to me why. ~ Jimmy Wales —This unsigned comment is by 47.48.129.234 (talkcontribs) .


Paywall

Contested PROD - the issue was that the only quote is not sourced. The given source does not contain the quote. — UDScott (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Vote closes: 21:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete, unless properly sourced quotes are provided. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Keep, now that quotes have been added. ~ UDScott (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep per w:WP:HEY I found and added some sourced quotes, and I am sure more could be found. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


Marian Renta

Quotes from a nonnotable person. The creator, who seems to have a COI with the subject, has been trying to create a Wikipedia article about the subject and then has moved to Wikiquote — Guerillero (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Vote closes: 15:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete as nonnotable. The Wikipedia draft from February is sparsely sourced and Google turns up no sign of GNG or NMUSIC. Maybe TOOSOON, in which case an article can be made after she is notable. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; notability not established. Antandrus (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


Template:Tv.com show

TV.com has been offline for several months and thus, all pages that use this template carry broken links to the defunct website. Similar templates that used this website have been deleted from Wikipedia a while ago for similar reasons. — WikiPediaAid (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Vote closes: 21:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)



Template:Bad

Very unlikely template redirect — Ferien (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Vote closes: 14:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)