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










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)



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


Cyborg


Mwanandeke Kindembo

Nupur J. Sharma

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

  • Keep. Notable author and journalist. One of her books [1] was in the top 1 position in the Amazon Best Sellers Rank It was #1 Best Seller in Kindle Store Amazon India across all categories. That fact alone makes the author highly notable. Also the author has almost half a million Twitter followers and for example among her notable interviews she interviewed the founder of this website. Also the precedent is to keep articles if they are notable despite not yet having a corresponding wikipedia articles, see the prior deletion discussions of Mekhala Krishnamurthy Neethi Padmanabhan Armin Rosencranz which all were kept after deletion discussion. Wikiquote has thousands of articles that are much less notable and this article meets notability clearly. Obviously when trillions of other lesser known people exist on Wikiquote, its unfair that investigative journalists or media critics are nominated for deletion because of their views. The problem is this: There are trillions of less notable pages here and they dont get deleted. Why? Because no one cares. But in the case of say an investigative journalist, or a media critic, then it is a problem (unless the notability cannot be denied anymore such as for Julian Assange or Snowden). Usually any other lesser-known XYZ person wouldnt have the problem with getting nominated for deletion. It applies to any controversial article, on topics with strongly different opinions and where editors of different beliefs are editing, thats where the problem lies. Currently, Wikiquote doesnt have any policies about how to deal with this effectively. New policies have to be made to deal with this. I dont know whats a good solution for this. But we do not censor, see Wikiquote is not censored and WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

The user Akhiljaxxn was edit-warring previously, made extreme personal attacks on WQ was edit-warring many times, did canvassing and forum shopping this could be part of it and only edits articles about the opposition party in India about which he deleted all quotes that are not 100 percent positive about the political party. -- (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC) The forum shopping and canvassing on other websites were done by somebody else, I mistakenly attributed the forum shopping and canvassing to this user, striking through, but the extreme personal attacks were done by this user. This user has made extreme personal attacks across wikiquote against the No personal attack policy. Personal attacks should never be used in Wikiquote. .

-- (talk) 12:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC) @Illegitimate Barrister:, @Miszatomic:, @UDScott:, @Mdd:, this article has been here for many months, can it be closed? -- ~ #SheSaid 10:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep per დამოკიდებულება i would like to trout the nominater for not even googling the subject to see Notablity before nominating.Ratnahastin (talk) 12:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

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



Delete Northern Italian does not seem to be an established term, which a user also pointed out at my discussion page. I have posted all three listed proverbs here into more geographically precise places. Spannerjam (talk) 09:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


Akhtar Aly Kureshy

Basically a self-promotional list of quotes - these are cherry-picked sound bites from newspaper interviews and such, but none are actually quotes that the subject is in any way known for. Note that the subject is almost certainly behind the creation and update of this page - see w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Akhtaradv, almost every named user in the page history has been blocked as a sockpuppet. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Vote closes: 02:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete. Blatant repeated sock-puppetry. Promotional content. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ TheWikiholic (talk) 06:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)




Manis Gupta

Contested prod for lack of proper sources and lack of notability. Both issues remain. — UDScott (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Vote closes: 14:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)