Wikiquote

Wikiquote:Votes for deletion

Community portal
Welcome		Reference desk
Request an article		Village pump
Archives		Administrators' noticeboard
Report vandalism • Votes for deletion
Shortcut


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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
    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)Reply[reply]
    Please keep "United States embargo against Cuba." Changes to grammar, spelling, etc. of course. But Wikipedia should stay out of US politics. This is an informative article. This article helps reduce the huge amount of ignorance among Americans, and perhaps others, about US-Cuban relations. It shows the relevant pros and cons. To remove this article would be an affirmative assistance to the anti-Cuba forces which base their success at dictating US policy on keeping Americans uninformed, and therefore easily mislead. DrWJK (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We aren’t here to help nor hinder anyone, but your case is otherwise reasonable. Dronebogus (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I object to this, because it is too vaguely worded. How do you even define a "fake Wikipedia article"? --Spafky (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Spafky: "Fake Wikipedia" is a descriptor I made up on the spot when trying to explain why these articles shared a common problem: quotes all so POV they ended up sounding like undisputed facts about each topic. I spent many hours trimming and balancing other articles created by the LibraryClerk191 sockpuppets, but these seemed to me topics where it would be hard to find notable "quotable" quotes. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete Information Warfare Community, and Crimes Against Humanity Initiative, both simply not very notable or quotable. Keep USS Liberty incident, notable quotes exist and it’s generally a notable incident; criticism of the official accounts isn’t some random fringe opinion even if most of the quotes are/were from an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist (broken clocks are right twice a day, yada yada). Delete Anti-Russian sentiment, at least for now; POV-fork invasion apologist magnet. Neutral on United States sanctions, it’s a notable topic but I’m worried it’s too much of a POV fork. Dronebogus (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep: (all remaining): In essence all are notable. I do have concerns on the presented Quotability on some and many may need a cleanup on an individual basis. There may need to be NPOV tags on some. No objection to a re-nom in after an interval but I'd suggest not bundling unless its useful to do so for a group of two or three. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 09:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep: USS Liberty incident, and United States sanctions: The sanctions article is already well-populated, though the Liberty article needs more quotes from survivors. The Anti-Russian sentiment article needs a couple of non-sequitur quotes, which are unrelated to the subject and included speciously and with an obvious agenda, such as Smedley Butler's "War is a racket", removed. --Harry Sibelius (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Module:Message box/old

This is for Module:Message box/old and Module:Message box/old/styles.css.

I believe the technical term for what we are looking at here is "a complete fucking mess". These are duplicates of the message box module that were created so Ilovemydoodle could mess around with the main module, which is in active use.

As best I can tell the background of these modules goes something like this:

  • Ilovemydoodle decides that they want to change how some of message boxes look on the site for some inexplicable reason.
  • They start using the main Module:Message box as a sandbox to screw around with making the boxes appear at different locations in the text.
  • They copy the existing, working module to an /old subpage
  • They modify some, but not all, of the existing templates to swap to the /old subpage, e.g. [1]

We now have a complete mess left over to fix, notably:

  • We have two copies of the same module, both of which are in use.
  • We have two versions of "omboxes", each of which looks slightly different.
  • A module being used on hundereds of pages is being treated as a sandbox.
  • The output of a long term, stable module has been changed without explanation or reason.

My proposal to fix this is thus:

  • The changes to the main module are reverted, and we check that nothing important is relying on the modified form of omboxs.
  • Any edits which introduced the /old subpage into use are reverted.
  • the /old subpages are deleted, returning us to one module.

If, in the future, Ilovemydoodle decides they want to play around with a heavily used module they do so in their own sandbox (or even better, on the test wiki), not on live code. If they want to create a brand new type of message box they should create a new template, not hijack an existing one. — 192.76.8.85 15:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 16:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete, as suggested - and agree with other steps to fix the issues. ~ UDScott (talk) 11:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I did a comparison of the two modules and the differences are sufficiently trivial that {"nothing important is relying on the modified form of omboxs" already. * Pppery * it has begun 05:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete or Keep but do something and don't dither!: I firmly suggest an admin closes this with authorisation for an Admin who is aware of of the issues. e.g. UDScott or Pppery to have a good faith attempt to fix the issues. This situation is a little unusual as admins Pppery and UDScott seem aware of the details of the problem but they've voted and therefore due to either best practice or ineligibility are unable to close the VFD. However I can see some admins who might close this are not minded to get involved the nitty gritty and to close on the basis that UDScott and Pppery are authorised to do the necessary at some point within a month. Thankyou. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 08:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not an admin here. * Pppery * it has begun 22:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

David DePape

Concerns over lack of notability. No associated English article though there is currently a redirect. Categories on that direct indicate possible promotionalism concernes. Questioning if Quotes themselves are significant.— User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 13:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 14:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC).

  • Comment: While I agree that this person is likely not worth having a page, the event that occurred (the attack on Paul Pelosi) is a notable event. Maybe this page should be redirected to a page about that event and additional quotes can be found. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Markjoseph125 (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: (as nom.) I'm only vaguely aware of the incident, but note policy WQ:QLP applies in a case like this not only to a perpetrator but also to any victim and I need a need not to overtly promote a victimiser in such cases or give them undue if any prominence on a victim's page, and that may be a precautionary reason specifically not to redirect/merge. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 00:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • redirect: I just spotted (or an least realised the significance of) a redirect on enWQ and that was sufficient for me to create d:Q116786368 which I've sitelinked. Unfortunately with my understanding I cannot currently link that Wikidata item to an English Wikipedia redirect (a newishly introduced feature) as my understanding of the required procedure is that it requires someone not blocked on enWQ as I am. While I believe the redirect is appropriate I remain concerned the platforming of individual over a victim may be inappropriate on WQ:QLP basis so I believe a blanket merge is inappropriate but that is a tricky argument to navigate. -- Djm-leighpark(a)talk
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. BD2412 T 07:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cathy O'Brien

Notability (just because she has a Wikipedia page is not sufficient); the one quote is just babble; and I see on her Wikipedia page that she self-publishes her books, which could be construed as self-promotion — Markjoseph125 (talk) 03:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 04:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC) Markjoseph125 (talk) 03:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete: I have concerns when Wikiquote is used to to platform and amplify personal comments against others particularly where W:WP:BLP or W:WP:BLPO are involved. Basically Wikiquote should not in any way support trolling, there is a victim at the end of it. I AGF the nom. is correct in there assertion the book is SPS and therefore quality secondary tertiary or secondary sources should be used to support any quote from it. To top it the article seems to have been created by a sock of a globally blocked user. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 21:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete: I guess I was supposed to vote, and mark it (as nom.)! Markjoseph125 (talk) 19:36, 18 January 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.

Elena Ospina

Lack of notability including no associated article on the English Wikipedia — User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 06:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 07:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Because of sources (I think I (As my alt account Deirge) seen on ProQuest (and it was a quick glance and my Spanish is not great) I don't feel maintaining a delete votes this one so I'm swung to neutral As it stands article should not stay here, but to remain the onus is on those who wish to keep to improve the article with cited content that improves representation of notability. But if it isn't improved or the associated enWQ article incarnated it should be (soft) deleted. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 23:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pragmatically moving to keep for my own mental and physical safety. My alt Deirge has created & sitelinked a Wikidata item after confirming "OPEN WINDOW. (2012, 03). New Internationalist, , 54. Retrieved from. Also Deirge found per "Dibujando por la paz", humor gráfico para cambiar el mundo: VIÑETAS PLANTU. (2011, May 23). EFE News Service we could even have "La libertad siempre ha estado amenazada, y existe una permanente autocensura en todos los medios de comunicación. La corrección política y la libertad de expresión son una combinación difícil" as a quote. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 06:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep: I think both wikipedia and wikiquote will be better when male artists aren't represented so much more than female artists. Would be nice if there was a way to make sure most of the people voting on something like this are women. Some about her background and awards she's won: https://www.irancartoon.com/site/artists/elena-ospina. Sorry if I format this incorrectly, this kind of page is new to me - User:A23423413 15:24, 6 January 2023
@A23423413: My understanding is enWikiquote inclusion/exclusion criteria is gender neutral and I am reasonably sure most people identifying as males on will not specifically vote against articles with women as subjects, in fact I'd suggest there might be a very slight bias in the opposite direction due to systemic bias in sources/(candidate-article)population. Even if Ospina is notable the important thing is the enWikiquote article demonstrates/prepresents it. That's fairly automatic if there is a link to an enWikipedia article that has persisted (stayed around in mainspace more that just fleetingly with unresolved notability tags). Otherwise it should need a brief high quality article summary stating notability aspects of the subject using independent w:WP:RS sources which should indicate the notability aspects of the subject. Any award worth its salt should probably link to an enWikipedia article, it might just be a industry or COI local award. Simplely stating a person is a female "Colombian painter, illustrator and cartoonist." does not in itself indicate notability. Pulling some info into the biography at the Link-rottable bare URL you've mentioned would be helpful albeit that's not helpful. My alt account Deirge has access to [The Wikipedia Library] (I've confirmed in my case my indef block was not an issue) and believe Proquest there has some possibly useful references you might be interested in for this subject. In fact just looking at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/James P. Walsh which is a useful study the article might be suffering from a "lack of representation of notability" rather than a "lack of notability", either of which should lead to delete. Hope this helps a little. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 12:05, 8 January 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. BD2412 T 07:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spider-Man 2 (video game)

Seemingly non-diligent duplicate of the earlier 2017 Spider-Man 2 (Video Game) article which has caused some time to determine what was going on. My interpreation of this content is that it is of poor quotabilty but that is subjective. More seriously there may be concerns over the accuracy of the content and as to whether lenght of dialogue is getting towards a copyvio. In all events I'm not prepared to merge and I would suggest anyone voting to merge only does so if they are prepared to action the merge themselves. Both suffered from being pointed at the Disambig page on the English Wikipedia and I've fixed that on both aricles. — User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 11:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 12:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

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 Uprety (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Joseph & Lindsey articles

Pair of related articles on the same series, slightly unusual set up with season 1 split from 2, 3 & 4 in the main article. Notability and promotional concerns with things on the English Wikipedia not looking good with w:Draft:Joseph & Lindsey, w:Joseph & Lindsey & [2]. Creator seems indef checkuser confirmed indef blocked for socketpuppetry on enWQ but ultimately you can say I am indef blocked on that place as well. — User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 20:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 21:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

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. BD2412 T 07:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kafayat Sanni

Associated article on the English Wikipedia was deleted following w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kafayat Sanni with closer comment "The result was delete". My understanding is there were in particular concerns about what I read are the distinctions between a "combat pilot" and a "figher" ("fast jet"?) pilot; and whether w:Blessing Liman's claim makes the subject's notability claim marginal. There remains, per d:Q93493239, a Hausa article persisted at w:ha:Kafayat Sanni. — User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 22:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 23:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC).

  • Neutral: Feeling need to recuse, at least at this moment. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 22:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete, appears to be of insufficient notability. Page is very similar to immediately preceding one on this list, possible self-promotion. —This unsigned comment is by Markjoseph125 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 18 January 2023‎.
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. No prejudice against recreation of the first page if notable quotes can be documented. BD2412 T 07:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Soul Eater unlinked articles

Soul Eater (manga) related set of creations is undoubtably itself notable, the problem with these articles is that they are not linked to Wikipedia articles where they are clearly mentioned and this makes it difficult to verify. There is also no sign of them having any quotes or linking to articles with quotes. It seems to appear an unstructured jigsaw puzzle with missing pieces that is better placed on a fan site. — User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 23:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 00:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The first has two quotes. The second uncontexted "Here we go!" is of no consequence. The remaining piece of unverified (possibly translated) dialog is totally dependent on anonymous IP's and sysops can't even manage retaining the {{vfd-new}} on the article title. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 03:35, 27 January 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 Uprety (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

List of video games articles

Seemingly part of an abandoned good faith project by a couple of editors to set up a list of video articles set up that can already be better and more sustainably handled by categories. It attempts to integrate a proposed article system that should not be in mainspace and unless carefully maintained and monitored can lead to articles being suggested that may end up being deleted. These things can be fulfillin to set up initiallly but a maintenance burden for those picking up the project after the original creators have abandoned it. — User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 05:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 06:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

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 Uprety (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Eva Kittelsen

Lack of notability with no associated English Wikipedia article I can find. Article may be leaning towards promotionalism. Other points are this is not a high value article and the creator has not engaged with required cleanup. — User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 07:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 08:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

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, without prejudice to recreation of notability is later demonstrated. BD2412 T 07:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Minerva Solla

Lack of notability concern with no references apart from claimed editing of a book whose title has been given butd no evidence of an English Wikipedia article on the subject existing. — User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 08:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 09:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Keep (weak):Delete: (as nom.) If problems are addressed I'm happy to consider reviewing my vote. But the problems need to be addressed. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 08:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Switching to a keep. I've sort of re-engaged and done a little to address the problem a little. Its possible/likely the book is the more notable entity (and binding an online borrowable edition has been a help) but if this is to remain a bio article the lead section really needs a background summary and some sourcing and I've done a little more on that. Whereas on a Wikiquote article backed by a directly associated English Wikipedia article the lead section here does not not have to be sourced for verification I can't recommend strongly enough if there is no English Wikipedia article then sourcing of the lead section is important. I note I am below the safe standard I suggested in a comment below. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 20:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete: (as nom.) Markjoseph125 (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete, for lack of notability. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hey, I think it'd be fair to ask a couple questions about this, especially considering the shesaid campaign. Could you list some of the Puerto Rican women from that generation that you consider notable? And some of the books which center on Puerto Rican women that you've read? I think that would be helpful information in a vote with so few people deciding whether a progressive Puerto Rican women should be considered notable or not on this website ~ A23423413 (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyone wanting to bring that information to the table could request a SparQL query from the experts at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Request_a_query. Given the apparent of both men and women and everything in between to achieve the simplest of HEYs or ask Deirge Ó Dhaoinebeaga to checkout some specific citations from Proquest via The Wikipedia Library there's little hope of this being retained in my view. Incidently I've just checked for a VIAF record and I can't find one. Does this help help? -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 19:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In response to the questions posed above by A23423413, I have no idea about other Puerto Rican women that might be notable, but I would say that it actually does not matter. The question is if this particular person is notable - meaning is this person well-known or is something they said or wrote well-known? To me, I do not see such a quality being demonstrated here. It's as simple as that - see WQ:Notability for further information. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It feels weird to me to use the word simple to describe this, especially considering the shesaid campaign. Shouldn't the people involved in the decision have some amount of knowledge relevant to the page, in this case the Puerto Rican Movement, the Young Lords, feminism? Otherwise there will continue to be a strong bias towards the ideology of a very small group (with right wing white american males likely way over-represented as they are on wikipedia) ~ A23423413 (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A quote from Elizabeth Martinez about mexican american women that might help explain where I'm coming from better than I can in my own words, because it's true about Puerto Rican women too. "Ask almost anyone outside of academia to name famous US women of Mexican origin and you will probably hear ‘Dolores Huerta.’ If the person knows our contemporary writers, maybe ‘Sandra Cisneros’ and ‘Ana Castillo.’ If you ask for a name from earlier times, you might get ‘Sor Juana’-the rebel nun of the 1600’s. When you try to dig deeper, your companion may whimper, ‘I give up! Well…there’s the Virgin of Guadalupe, she’s on a lot of T-shirts. It was inevitable, then, that the need for a book like this would be recognized...The problem of locating photos often confirms the indifference to women’s presence in history, as reflected in the media, books, historical records, museums, university libraries." ~ A23423413 (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep: I think it would be good to make sure some of the people voting about whether a leading woman from the Puerto Rican movement is notable or not are Puerto Rican women. I think both Wikipedia and Wikiquote will be better when white males aren't as over-represented as they are now, both in pages created and among the people deciding who is notable or not ~User:A23423413
That's a rubbish argueentargument, and possible personal attack on the voters here. Basically on a bio article with no associated English Wikipedia article I'm looking for sourced presentation of notability in the lead section. I'd somewhat recommend you compare with Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/P. M. Currie. And actually when I did you you might have an argument that whereas for that argument in that nomination I made the comment The book might be notable but that is a different matter whereas I didn't make that comment here. So my personal view you have got at least four of saving this per w:WP:HEY (vote a keep with a chip on the shoulder argument won't help): Get W:WP:THREE references for Minerva Solla, use at least one to source the article lead section and you or I can get a sitelinked Wikidata Item set up via a spreadsheet into Quickstatements of otherwise; move the article to the book title as its probably notable; Use the author as the subject, d:Q99675943 Merge to Iris Morales; or Merge to Young Lords Party. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 20:30, 21 January 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 Uprety (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Siavash Shahsavari

Not notable, contested PROD --Ferien (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 15:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Should be salted as well tbh. This was first created on several Wikipedia's, but since that didn't work out they tried out different wikiquotes. 0 RS. Plain x-wiki spam. Styyx (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete: There's an extensive network of related Wikidata Item's been created by several users relating to d:Q113708516 and I've restored the sitelink from Wikidata to here while this VfD is ongoing.. I am conscious to be neutral in regard to articles relating to certain countries at present but ultimately this article does not demonstate notabilty at present and somewhat similar to Styyx there is a strong possibility of spam and concerted SEO work. As such I'd recommend salting until an article can be persisted on the sister English Wikipedia project where there are resources to examine the notability question in full and if that is the case a review here would be reasonable. Obviously Wikidata may need a clean as well. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 15:32, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep، Siavash Shahsavari is a well-known person in Iran and has an interview with the government news agency to set a Guinness record.

What kind of sources are used to remain cited? Cyrus danesh (talk)

  • This is a cross wiki spam. Honestly, it should have been CSD'ed Ladsgroup (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a wiki article , not a spammerمحمدپندار (talk)

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 Uprety (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Naledi Ngwato

Lack of notability concern tagged on the article not addressed for over six months and the notability claim seems flimsy and little chance of being able to persist and article on the an English Wikipedia. — User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 18:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 19:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

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. BD2412 T 07:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elvis Presley quote forks

Perhaps following on from Talk:Elvis Presley#Page getting out of hand this seems a good faith bold undiscussed attempt to split the Elvis Presley (about section) into more manageable sub-portions. Unfortunately rather than the execution of an (undiscussed) clean break split with no duplicate what has happened is forked duplicate sub-articles with divergent updates continuing in parallel. I'm far from certain this particular undiscussed split choice was optimal and VfD is not the place to discuss a split choice, gaining consensus on the Presley talk page is. While there may be suggestions for a merge(s) I suggest that simply compounds the mess and delete is the option. For those that think anything is lost there is opportunity for anyone to check internet archives here and here and perform their own gap analysis and remediation. I note most substantial changes to these forks post split were made by anon IP's with logged in users doing some tidying and maintenance work. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 07:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 08:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

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 Uprety (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Radhika Vijay

Lack of notability concern and promotional concern. The creator has performed a widespread attempt to get this article to be on wikipedia and has even continued here under Prod which means a contestation will be inevitable so I've moved to a VfD nomination. As far as I am aware the books area self-published. The lady appears to lovely lady and outside of Wikipedia I might recommend her podcasts are played at my local General Hospital pharmacy waiting room, In fact she has several mentions at Google Scholar but I'm unsure if these are predatory journals and this is why in this case an article persisted on the English Wikipedia where there are experienced editors to scrutinised this really ought to be the pre-requisite on the English Wikipedia first to confirm the notability. I'm going to assume the creator got the image from a youtube video or whether from personal near contact. — User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 01:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 02:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC).

  • Delete: (Nominator): Will reconsider favourably if an English Wikipedia article can be persisted. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 01:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete: Pure self-promotion. These are the types of articles that need to be deleted if Wikiquote is to maintain its identity. Markjoseph125 (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:32, 20 January 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 Uprety (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Dimitris Maronidis

Prod for lack of notability on article with no corresponding article on the English Wikipedia was challenged with a w:WP:SPS which is of no notability value. I have found a pre-existing wikidata item and have created a sitelink a from it. There are a about 3 pages on the English Wikipedia which seem to mention the subject extremely briefly. — User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 06:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 07:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC).

  • Delete: (nominator); Persisted Wikipedia article really needed to represent and very difficult to demonstrate that otherwise, but if it can be done might be willing to reconsider my vote. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 06:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, not all of the quotes are strong some though are nice and deep but indeed there is no Wikipedia article, so it can go for deletion. Maybe though instead of deleting the page one should create a wiki page for the subject. Lene Biermann (talk) 15:30, 18 January 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 Uprety (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Kelly Champane

Lack of notability. There is no representation of notability and there would be currently be little chance of persisting an article on the English Wikipedia at this time from the available sources given. A Wikiquote article with no equivalent English Wikipedia article is responsible for sourcing its own summary paragraph at the start of the page for verification; and that has not done in this case at the time of nomination. External links of bare URL link are of little help in this matter, and in this case I'm reasonably certain not all the claims in the lead summary paragraphs have been covered here. I've sitelinked an existing wikidata item, d:Q113671716, though I believe that fails d:Wikidata:Notability and I believe that the creator there been told about this type of issue already. User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 00:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 01:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC).

  • Delete: (nominator) I was intending to simply leave this tagged as {{notability}} for a while to see if VfD might be avoided, but was not prepared to wait after an Anon-IP reverted my edits. I would have expected to raise a VfD for this in February the anon IP (since blocked) actions made bringing this forwarded. I am reasonably minded and AGF the Anon-IP actor was not the article or acting under their influence. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 00:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete: notability; other concerns mentioned. Markjoseph125 (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete, for lack of notability. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:34, 20 January 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 Uprety (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Zenzele Hirschfeld

Lack of notability. There is no representation of notability and there would be currently be little chance of persisting an article on the English Wikipedia at this time from the available sources given. A Wikiquote article with no equivalent English Wikipedia article is responsible for sourcing its own summary paragraph at the start of the page for verification; and that has not done in this case at the time of nomination. External links of bare URL link citations supporting quotes are of little help in this matter in verifying that content whish is where representation of notability called for. I've sitelinked an existing wikidata item, d:Q113662748, and I believe that also fails d:Wikidata:Notability. — User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 01:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 02:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC).

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. BD2412 T 07:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wmf-wiki

Page comes across as possibly like some non-WQ:NPOV sort of gentle atteck on WMF or representatives. Page is certainly no up to required standards and uncategorized which is somewhat unusual. It might be the community might for example consider a merge to Wikimedia but I have not checked the pros/cons of that. — User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 10:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 11:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Delete: (nominator): All sort of problems and issues here and at risk of accusations of censorship or non-neutral point of view with regards to the WMF I am voting delete. I may not be opposed to a decision to merge if that is a community decision but I am not offering to do that and I reserve the right to challenge at poor quality merge or merge violating WQ:NPOV. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 10:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete low notability, and likely trolling. Lemonaka (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Definitely *not* NPOV. Markjoseph125 (talk) 20:28, 19 January 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 Uprety (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Christopher Poole

Notability may not be an issue, but the one quote is pure self-promotion. — Markjoseph125 (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 21:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC). Markjoseph125 (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Markjoseph125 (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete, in its current form. The lone quote is certainly not memorable, but if other quotes were added, the person is certainly notable, and in that case could remain. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:36, 20 January 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: keep. BD2412 T 07:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Charisma Carpenter

Unnecessary. Borderline self-promotion. — Markjoseph125 (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 21:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC). Markjoseph125 (talk) 20:43, 19 January 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.

P. M. Currie

Lack of sourced notability of subject given no Wikipedia article. Further indicators with subject is only initials are presented here. The book might be notable but that is a different matter. — User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 23:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 00:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC).

  • Keep or move to book article, or merge and redirect (per others in the discussion). The deletion seems based on the fact that the subject has no article in the encyclopedia wikipedia, but it is not wikiquote policy that such an article must exist. A compendium of quotes can have notability criteria that are different from an encyclopedia , see Category:Articles with no corresponding English Wikipedia article. I don't mind if the article is moved to a book article about the book. The book is probably the most important academic study on the subject matter of this book. The book is notable and has been quoted numerous times by multiple other authors. --ᘙ (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nope. The article, and pretty much in the lead section, has to represent the notability of the subject with verifiable sourced information. For a bio, which this is in its current form, that means linking to an article in the English Wikipedia in which case it seems fairly acceptable as no need to cite the lead section, or not linking to an English Wikipedia in which cause the lead section should be cited for verification or else its useless for towards any notability claim made in that section. There a possible concession if the associated wikidata item can be used to validate it, but P. M. Currie does not have one. What is a problem that I have just come across is that the lead section can be sourced from [3] or [4] and what we have here seems to be a direct one-for-one match with senteneces from those places which then raises the issue of possible copyright violation. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 08:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
nope? then where in the Wikiquote:Deletion policy do you see your interpretations of the notability requirements? It is not in any official wikiquote policy and looking at Category:Articles with no corresponding English Wikipedia article it has not been recorded consensus at wikiquote either. of course, I understand your concern that many wikiquote articles have questionable notability, but IMHO it would be better to define some notability rules in the Wikiquote:Deletion policy, get consensus for the rules, and then apply them equally to all articles. Re the blurb it is found on Google Books and many more different websites, I'm not sure if it is fair use so I have rewritten it. P.M. Currie might well be notable under wikipedias' rules himself, the book can be said to have made a significant impact in the study of this Sufi, but at least the book quoted should definitely be, see this link [5] which lists four different reviews.
"Further indicators with subject is only initials are presented here. " P.M. Currie is how this author is commonly cited. --ᘙ (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Subject meets the wq notability requirements IMO, he has also been quoted multiple times by others, and likely also the requirements of the wikipedia website, but in this case it could also be moved to the book article or merged to Moinuddin Chishti and redirected. --ᘙ (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. As indicated above, this could be made into a book article; alternatively, the important quotes could be added to the relevant topic pages. Markjoseph125 (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Merge notable/quoteworthy quotes into the Moinuddin Chishti page. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:41, 20 January 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 Uprety (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Kemi Dasilva-ibru

Lack of notability no English Wikipedia article. This article has been set up to imply the is an associated English Wikipedia article when there is none and also incredibly links to to w:Title of Wikipedia article on this person which has had to be repeatedly salted. — User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 00:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 01:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

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 Uprety (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Becky Eneche

The key issue is lack of notabilitity of the subject with that fact somewhat hidden by use of the {{Wikipedia}} which claims such an article existed. Its possibly unclear to me why the creator removed their own citations replacing all the remaining claimed quotes with a {{Citation needed}} but it does indicate a further problem. Additionally I have found the following Witidata Items/Wikipedia pages that are linkable to the subject:

  • d:Q11266795 Wikidata items for Becky Eneche. Claims of reference imported from the English wikipedia with no associated URL are a problem here. I'm unclear if the other reference from www.thenewman.org.ng but I suspect ultimately some might find it SPS.
  • d:Q114213686 Husband Pastor Paul Enenche. Notable for use of a Nigerian Car Mart blog as a reference to support the Wikidata item.
  • w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dunamis International Gospel Center "Draftify to allow for continued improvement". @Star Mississippi in your role as Afd closer on the sister project, I know you don't like me contacting you but can you review if you feel the concerns addressed at the AfD were met? These affect one of the options below.
  • w:Dunamis International Gospel Centre a rename of the article incubated with possible reference citebomb from the results of a (possible) press release which was accepted by AfC, presumably as this was judged an acceptable "improvement" expected by the closer. (at least the article was not copy/pasted reincarnation into a new name variant which is the common practice to remove the "stain" of a previous AfD with a non-positive outcome for the article).

I am left overall wondering if this Christian demonination is or is not sufficiently notable, and how much of this set up is promotionalism and if there are any independent references? There is a possibility of moving this quote to Dunamis International Gospel Centre on the basis the AFC reviewer of the associated enWP article is experienced and in good standing, Closer Star Mississippi did not imply a notability problem by accepting the suggestion to Draftify from the AfD so that may be a viable option. — User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 08:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 09:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC).

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: already deleted (deletion endorsed). BD2412 T 07:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Diary of a Wimpy Kid articles

If set of articles about a television/film/video franchise persist on Wikiquote there needs to be a clear and unambiguous presentation of that structure for verification purposes. The central root article here points to W:Diary of a Wimpy Kid (film series) where one might expect to find verification of that structure but it simply isn't there. The film from the TV series, Diary of a Wimpy Kid: The Movie! has an article and appears independent notably while and other films not seemly linked to this TV series: Diary of a Wimpy Kid, Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2010 film), Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Rodrick Rules (2011 film), Diary of a Wimpy Kid: The Long Haul (film), and Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Dog Days (film). Two articles, Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Rodrick Rules (2022 film) and Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2021 film) where recently speedily deleted for no quotes. Structurally this is a mess and it is disruptive of those creating the articles to Ensure what is here is fully supported on the English Wikipedia. There are also indicators due care for Wikiquote:Quotability has not been observed. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 00:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted Hoaxes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 01:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

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 Uprety (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Dragon Ball GT

See extensive history of page; NO QUOTES; no activity on page since 2019. Seems to be a failed project. Also, the original creator has been permanently blocked, and the main "contributor" has also been blocked for extensive periods (for this reason I did not leave a note on either of their talk pages). I don’t think this is a legitimate Wikiquote page. - Markjoseph125 (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 02:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC). Markjoseph125 (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Markjoseph125 (talk) 01:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete In my view this is a disambig (DAB) page which needs no quotes. However a DAB page for two series of the w:Dragon Ball universe? I think not. In my view I've just improved the navigation between the two child pages and this dab page is unnecessary. Regarding the WQ:Quatabilty of the representation of the Dragon Ball universe that is outside the scope of this VFD. There is certainly a need for a visitor from outside the Dragon Ball universe to be able to navigate the pages on Wikiquote and the structure of these pages need to reflect the description on the English Wikipedia. I also do not see removal of this article negatively impacting the tree/mesh of Wikidata itemss in the Dragon Ball universe on Wikidata or the (in)ability to run simple SparQL queries in that place. Simple answer: this page is not necessary, delete. -- —This unsigned comment is by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) . 06:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete as an unnecessary disambig page. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:49, 22 January 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.

Blue's Clues articles

Poorly presented set of articles on w:Blue's Clues which is notable. The outlying season articles are of the poorest quality. I have considered a discussed merge and a bold merge but the quality/verificability/style of the season satellites makes me reluctant to perform this. The fact seasons 1 and 5 are duplicated in both the main article and outlying articles shows general negligence and lack of diligence by anon IP creators leaving disuption for others to tidy up and avoiding all consequence of that disruption. I have some concerns about the central article with references and verificability but am minded the presentation and standard is similar to many other articles here. — User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 23:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 00:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Per consensus (leaning weak keep): Blue's Clues & (firm) Delete: Blue's Clues/Season 1-6 due to poor quality of content of those articles unless someone feels strong about merging content. Anyone merging can probably simply attribute to "anon IP" and not retain the original but I'm cool either way. Suggest closer to advise an article split of Blue's Clues not to be preformed without a consensus discussion. (nominator) -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 23:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete: Blue's Clues/Season 1-6, per above. Markjoseph125 (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Burggrafenamt Tyrolean proverbs

Well, it's not an *English* Wikiquote page. Perhaps move it to a German page. - Markjoseph125 (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 01:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC). Markjoseph125 (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete: Per nomination Markjoseph125 (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep: (at least for now) This is one of a number of dialect articles on Wikiquote that I recently created Wikidata items (and may not have pages on the English Wikipedia) and for which a merge could be possible. As such this is a precedent VFD for potentially several other follow-on VfD's and might be better pre-discussed an the Village pump first. The creator of this article has been informed and seems no longer active. However per perhaps a somewhat similar move proposal that I withdrew following discussion with Aliter who is more active in this area of quotations/proverbs related to dialects. There is also Talk:French proverbs#Merge proposal of Béarnese proverbs to here which was initiated after this discussion. Overall I am inclined to keep a VFD such as this and perhaps not even proposing scattergun merges until a discussion has been held agreeing the best way of handling these proverbs dialect pages ... which may be there own section on a main language page or if/when that becomes to unwieldy a dialect subpage of a main lanuguage/dialect. But its better to hold off VFD's and even moves until a best practice is suggested first for this class of artices, and VFD isn't the greatest of places to discuss good merges. -- Djm-leighpark(a)talk 08:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Game Mothibi

Lack of notability concern. When there is no corresponding article on the English Wikipedia to easily support notability I am opined the onus falls on the article, particularly the lead section, to represent that notability, to a degree specially if there is no associated Wikidata item. The lead section needs to make a scrutiniser aware of the key notability points without cluttering up with distractions of {{dead-link}}s and attending courses in other lands. Being secretary general of the IWG[6] (hasn't been notable enough to get its own English Wikipedia article) might be just enough but I think thats a decision for the community here. — User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 06:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 07:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC).

Justine Tunney

Only borderline notable on the English Wikipedia, but all the quotes are sourced from Twitter and one other primary source, which are available nowhere else. Vanity page in my view. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 13:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark I just checked, they are a bit related but different quotes. But I don't feel like rewriting the article to the quotes from the article. Or must that be considered before deletion? It won't become a great article due to marginal notability anyway. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete both for non-notability (just because someone has a twitter account does not mean they are important) and, per the nomination, looks very much like self-promotion. Markjoseph125 (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep — this person had been accepted as sufficiently notable as both a software developer and social activist to have had articles both here and at Wikipedia since 2014. The above comments specify an article in a major newspaper dealing with some statements such as were quoted on her page, and she seems to have indeed been prominent as an activist and a software engineer. Though I doubt much growth or wide interest in the page, I certainly perceive no evidence that she is actually Greenrd (talk · contributions), the creator of the article, who has been an active Wikipedia contributor since 2003, so labeling it merely "self promotion” or a "vanity page” seems a rather ludicrous and entirely unwarranted assumption. ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 13:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep - I don't feel strongly about this page, but I agree with the arguments put forth by Kalki. I don't see a need for deletion. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I still think that the page should be deleted. Let's base the argument on our guidelines here, WQ:Q. The 6th factor is "Is the quote independently well known? Has it withstood, or is it likely to withstand, the test of time?". That is surely not the case with any quotes on the acutal page and not with either quotes in news articles authored by her. She was quoted in a handful of newspapers but those quotes were never repeated by 3rd parties again in a context where she wasn't the one who directly spoke them. PhotographyEdits (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep: An anon IP (? from Holland) has disrupted the article by removing content, at least using a summary but without actually citing policy or guideline. That said simply citing a tweet without a supporting secondary source is actually not appropriate here. I have been moved to add a quote from the Guardian/Hern and in that state I believe a simples w:WP:HEY has been achieved and I feel keep is appropriate and that the change also addresses the concerns of the delete votes. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 17:44, 1 February 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: Kept. BD2412 T 03:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008 TV series)

No quotes. There were some, but they were all deleted in 2016, and activity since then has been minimal. Possibly a failed project. In any case, unnecessary. - Markjoseph125 (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 23:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC). Markjoseph125 (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. (Aside to admins: I was going to add the usual note to the creator's talk page, but see he has been indefinitely blocked, and the page is "fully protected". I thought I was able to edit this type of page, but apparently not. If someone wants to add said note, it would be much appreciated. Thanks.) Markjoseph125 (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep: This is a root page parent directory page for a media series which links to a child page for each season of the series. As such it does not, and probably should not, contain quotes, unless to emphasise a single series/universe wide quote such as "May the force be with you". this has been an established practice over some considerable time and might need RFC's to change. My view is that a problem only arises in this area if the structure is describes does not match that on the English Wikipedia or that a competent person unfamiliar with the universe/series cannot easily navigate it. That does not seem to be the case here. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 23:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep, like Djm-leighpark, I don't see the issue here. Such pages, with links to pages of seasons of a TV show, are common here. ~ UDScott (talk) 03:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep — as a rather standard and useful directory page. ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 13:06, 25 January 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.

Michelle Statham

Notabilty concerns. This is a sort of a w:WP:BLP1E and I've a reasonable guess an article on the English Wikipedia would not sustain. The Tik tok followers metric may be accurate, or it may be a poor reference, or it may be subject to SEO interference. There's no sitelinked wikidata item, though I'm prepared to create one if the community elects to retain this article, and are created there to a failed defence of this VFD. I realise I have a systemic bias feeling here and I'm looking for a community decision. — User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 06:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 07:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  • Recuse: (nominator): While people may good faith feel I am being hypocritical, and they have reason to have such views, I claim I have a possible issue with some gun video games and that has linkage to my indef blocking on the English Wikipedia and certainly have systemic bias on this article. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 06:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete: (per nomination) Markjoseph125 (talk) 23:14, 30 January 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: Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Isaac Mashman

While the article creator's name matching the article's name does not prove they they are the same other factors are an indicator to violation of policy Wikiquote:NOTPERSONAL. In all events lack of notability with possible Conflict of Interest self-promotionalism and mainly self-published sourcing. VFD necessary as a PROD was previously contested. — User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 08:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 09:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

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 Uprety (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Norma De Saint Picman

This article has had a messy history with speedy deletions, recreation and contestation. in particular I may have re-imposed a {{db}} when should have raised a VFD. With an existing article in the English Wikipedia it would seem notability was established by that place and by implication here and all that was required to present some quotable quotes in a broad resemblance to an acceptable manner. I have difficulty choosing if the creator is genuinely struggling to cope here after a bad start or faking that for some reasons to be disruptive or trying to hope a different editor will take over and complete the task to w:WP:HEY save the article. So that may or may not be an indicator of promotionalism or a COI. I've also taken a look at the article on the English Wikipedia and there's a lot of self published sources and a pre w:WP:BEFORE indicates I might of considered w:WP:AFDing that if I was not blocked there, subject of course to full BEFORE. — User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 09:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 10:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC).

  • Delete: (nominator). -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 09:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete because, despite the confusing edit history, it is clear that there is not and has not been any kind of citation of any published source of the indicated text. The contributor's other edits and discussion do not reflect an understanding of the concept. ~ Ningauble (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete: (per nomination & argument from Ningauble) Markjoseph125 (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete, per nom and Ningauble. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:04, 6 February 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.

Justin L. Smith

contested prod for Lack of notability with signs of promotionalism/spam for example the bareURL link in the lead section. — User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 23:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 00:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

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: Clearly consensus to keep.Lemonaka (talk) 02:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Piet Emmer

This is being raised to get a positive community consensus that this article should be retained or deleted, and community consensus as to if a {{NPOV}} tag needs to be applied. I began to scrutinise this article when it did not have an associated English Wikipedia article, and was somewhat interested in the impact a BOT trial may have had in that process and in analysis of the W:WP:AFC decline. Having located d:Q2180030 I made the sitelink. I note the grandfather article to this may be from the on the Dutch Wikipedia from 2006. There is a thread here where I have made some analysis and which unsuccessfully tries to reach out to the bot trial and AFC decliner (AGF they may not have picked this up) and where the article creator has made a statement. I am opined there might be both valid arguments to delete and to keep. — User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 10:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 11:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  • *Keep:Per consensus: (nominator) My current intention is to go with per consensus on this one. If there is no community input put or it is divided my suggestion to the closer is to keep but add a precautionary {{NPOV}} due to the contentious nature of slavery related matters (I will not have time to confirm the neutrality of this myself). -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 10:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Per anon IP's vote commentary on their 23 February 2023 below and English Wikipedia has now been persisted and I an happy to more my position to keep because of that. I also feel my concerns to place a {{NPOV}} on this article have been allayed and I do not believe there is any particular issue on this article which would warrant that tag. Thankyou. (formerly Djm-leighpark) -- DeirgeDel tac 08:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: :Piet Emmer is the leading expert on Dutch colonial history, in the Netherlands and Suriname since the 1980s, he obtained his PhD with his Dissertation on the Dutch slave trade in 1974, he was professor of colonial history at Leiden University for 18 years, he has written several bestselling books in several languages including Dutch, English and German, he has been a well-known face around this subject in the Dutch, Surinamese and Antillean media since the 1980s, he has appeared in several documentaries on the topic of Surinam and Durch Colonial history and slavery, he writes columns on the subject, and is to this day actively involved in the debate around decolonization and the Dutch slavery past on a national level. If he does not qualify for a wikipedia page, well then who does? There is clearly a political activist agenda, of censoring and canceling anything that doesn't fit the current narrative. The sources of the English Wikipedia article are fine, the same sources are accepted on the French, German, Arabic, Papiamento and Portuguese wikipedia's, and on the Dutch Wikipedia where has a page since 2006. Pete Emmer is not an activist, or a social warrior, or a racist, or white supremacist, or an obscure alt-right personality living on the fringes of society, far from it, he is a scientist, a respected scientist in several countries, he presents the facts as they are, in understandable language and in a respectful manner. And that some people are too vulnerable to hear the facts, and that they feel they should erase the facts, and replace them with things that are not facts, but sound good and confirm the current narrative, says more about them, than about the honorary Professor Emmer i think. TheRoyalTrust (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep: I naturally vote to keep this page. TheRoyalTrust (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep: if we deleted every article with potential NPOV issues, there would be no political articles at all. I'm going with notability on this one. Markjoseph125 (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep: Piet Emmer has a page on Wikipedia. 2A02:A03F:8B2C:9200:E536:B6D2:C2F9:20AE 13:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The page of Piet Emmer on the English Wikipedia has been approved, so the reason for this page has become invalid, so this page can be removed, thanks. TheRoyalTrust (talk) 00:20, 14 March 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.

Aart Juriaanse

Lack of notability. Having searched Wikidata and the English and German Wikis I find no other reference to the subject. But I would expect to find a little more somewhere. There are a couple of books, some of which are compilations. The sources used for the very long quotes appear to be non-mainstream specific sites. I was left feeling this article could be promotionalist. The creator seems to have been block as in not good standing. I am, somewhat unexpectedly in this case, being left that pending some independent reliable sources this article should be removed from the English Wikiquote. There is even a slight concern in my mind, possibly unjustified, of this being an eloborate hoax. — User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 19:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 20:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  • Delete: (nominator): I believe the appropriate action is to delete, if only from a precautionary viewpoint. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 19:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete: (per nomination) Markjoseph125 (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak Keep. After googling I see some (limited) notability within the field of South African spiritualist/theosophist writers, and the article is well developed. --ᘙ (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @ᘙ: I believe this is a case where it may be extremely careful to look for press releases in the absence of an English Wikipedia article. In the absence of an article on the English Wikipedia which would settle the matter can you explicitly fully cite your best W:WP:THREE RS. Thankyou. -- DeirgeDel tac 00:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I found some sources that show some notability, but nothing really impressive though. On balance, I still don't think it would hurt to keep the article. I probably won't have time to look into this again. --ᘙ (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is an additional concern : the writer seems to be known for his compilations of the writings of Alice Bailey. It should be verified if these quotes are not actually quotes by Alice Bailey, if the article is kept. --ᘙ (talk) 02:01, 18 March 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 Uprety (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Gigi Goyette

Concerns about the unreferenced claim in the lead section to have been in the Little House on the Praire. But then there is the problem of of no mention of this on IMDB than I can find. I'd guess for actress read possible extra/bit-part, but note guess. If the subject is notable is is likely for the claim's in this biography book. Be aware the 1st edition of the book (not the 2006 in the article, is loaded to Wikidata and is borrowable; page numbers/content can be slightly different).

— User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 22:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 23:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  • Delete: (nominator) If this article cannot context a BLP accurately then it should be a "Hasta la vista, baby" job. I have only vague recollections of the relevant claims and don't think and I'm not researching now. If someone picks this up and properly contexts this in an NPOV making it clear what is claim and what is fact, basing on the fact bio's can be written to sensationalise (and that is a generic statement and I have no clue about this case); then I've prepared to consider to change my vote; or at a minimum go neeutral. If the community decides to keep whether than decision be right or wrong in my view I will take the consensus and set up an associated Wikidata item. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 22:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete: (per nomination) Markjoseph125 (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete, for lack of notability. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:44, 1 February 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.

William Fossett

Unaddressed verification failure on key notability source significant with no direct associated English Wikipedia article on subject to confirm notability and other facts. — User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 12:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 13:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Don Juravin

Concerns of Lack of notability; also possible promotionalism, and possible NPOV. That the subject has written the book is not disputed; but this book present a seemingly plausible but complex non-mainstream analysis of the Hebrew Bible. It is in the subject's best interests that this view is promoted. Wikiquote should not be used for such promotion unless their are good independent sources for such a book. The obvious thing would be to persist an article on the English Wikipedia but that does not seemed to have been achieved even if it was attempted. The onus then falls on the article here to present a reliable independent claims of notability and that has not be to have been achieved. The nearest thing matching the name "Don Juravin" as an independently reliable reliable source I've found seems to relate to some litigations but to be very clear these may relate to a different person thatthan the subject. The three main contributors to this article do not appear to have made and contributions to any other Wikiquote article. — User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 07:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 08:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Secondary independent sources added. Removed sources and quotes that are not according to the WikiQuote guidelines. Mr.Durnbey (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. Correctthedots (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC) All of the possibly promotive sources are removed. Replaced with independent sources. Subject is a researcher and has written a book for analysis of the Hebrew Bible, but the link that was previously posted is removed. Independent sources are needed if a book needs to posted on Wikiquote. Subject's Wikiquote page has been updated.Reply[reply]
  • Keep:ClockTickTock (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC) Subject's sources are changed to independent. With a quick look up, I discovered that the subject is a Bible researcher and spiritual mentor. I suggest for this subject to be kept as changes on its page are being done.Reply[reply]
  • Delete: (nominator) -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 07:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you for addressing the issues. I will correct the page with reliable secondary sources following the Wikiquote guidelines. The page is not created for promotion but to share quotes of Don Juravin, an entrepreneur and researcher. Mr.Durnbey (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete for lack of notability. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you for addressing the issues. I will correct the page with reliable secondary sources following the Wikiquote guidelines. Mr.Durnbey (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete for lack of notability; also, the first quote is pure self-promotion. Markjoseph125 (talk) 03:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you @Markjoseph125. Removed the quote after researching that the quote was also about a past working place. Mr.Durnbey (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: (to closer by nominator). I observe claims the press releases are reliable sources. There are very good reasons why COI would be desperate to retain this article to maintain a high place on Google searches, and a concerted effort to fake notability made just prior to earliest vote those and w:WP:BLUDGEON through a keep. -- Djm-leighpark(a)talk 22:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The WikiQuote page of Don Juravin, has been updated as it is requested (with secondary independent sources). There are thousands of WikiQuote pages of people with sources from news sites or any other website(independent or not) and they are not being accused or judged of "desperately trying to retain an article to show up on Google". If that was the case, why the subject of this page didn't have a WikiQuote page 4-5 years ago? Google shows that his researches (Societal, Economic or Biblical) and quotes are published on news sites 4-5 years ago, and it is Google's job to index a page according to different factors and shouldn't be a comment here, as there are thousands of subjects on WikiQuote, of which, if you search on Google, will see that WikiQuote retains a high place on Google.
    Coming from the fact that WikiQuote has to be from a neutral point of view, comments about possibilities shouldn't be a comment here, and if the subject has shared quotes, researches and thoughts about those researches, like every subject on WikiQuote, he should have a page. I also see that there are contributors who observe the page as corrected according to the request from the nominator. Mr.Durnbey (talk) 08:29, 9 February 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 Uprety (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Younes Naseri

Concerns of lack of notability but this concern may be controversial. No associated Wikipedia article and I believe would fail W:WP:NOLY as silver medal at Olympics was a team medal not an individual medal. — User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 11:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 12:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

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: Deleted per consensus, no quotes.--Lemonaka (talk) 10:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anthony Tsang

Notabilty not demonstrated with no associated article on the English Wikipedia. No quotes and intent may have been promotionalism. — User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 17:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 18:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

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 Uprety (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Mary Anderson

Lack of notability compounded lack of context. While the only source exists as a hardcopy borrowable from some difficult to get at libraries there is no page number or order location. And who is Mary Anderson. W:May Anderson is a DAB page to several people named "Mary Anderson". And the article has no context to who this Mary Anderson is. — User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 18:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 19:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

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.

Amer Deeba

Lack of notability. Lots of pres release and COI coming up on Google indicative of SEO promotionalism. This really needs associated English Wikipedia article to confirm the notability. — User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 07:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 08:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Portia Loeto

Lack of notability and no associated English Wikipedia article — User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 07:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 08:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Dzene Makhwade-Seboni

Lack of notability and no associated English Wikipedia article — User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 07:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 08:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Thato Angela Chuma-Mogotsi

Lack of notability and no associated English Wikipedia article — User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 08:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 09:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Faith Abiola Oyedepo

Lack of notability and no associated English Wikipedia article. In passing I observe her husband, David Oyedepo has an English Wikipedia article and would be deemed notable, but she cannot inherit his notability. — User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 10:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 11:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Emma Nxumalo

Lack of notability and no associated English Wikipedia article — User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 10:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 11:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Eunor Guti

Lack of notability and no associated English Wikipedia article — User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 10:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 11:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Vanessa Grise

Lack of notability and no associated English Wikipedia article. In particular no evidence of sustained work at a non-local level. — User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 10:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 11:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Osman al-Hadi Ahmad

Lack of notability and no associated English Wikipedia article. The BBC article is a highly reliable source and there are similar articles at the same time. However this appears w:WP:BLP1E and not really significant in its own right for notability in a Wikipedia/Wikiquote context, though that hard viewpoint is not to belittle the subject's work. — User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 10:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 11:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Triangles Meditation

Lack of notability and no associated English Wikipedia article. The latter is important to establish the the purpose here is to inform rather that use for promotionalism and an advert. — User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 10:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 11:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  • Delete (nominator) : My feelings are not another article relating to Creme or Ageless Wisdom that doesn't have a directly associated English Wikipedia article linked .-- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 10:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete, lack of notability; self (actually, movement) promotion. Markjoseph125 (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep, or merge to the author articles. Wikipedia covers other rituals from many other traditions, why should this one not be notable as well? Every article can be accused of being "promotion". --ᘙ (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mike Golub

Lack of notability and no associated English Wikipedia article. If a decision was made to move and refactor this to reflect the soccer club which has an article that might be solution, but as stands not notable. — User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 19:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 20:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

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: deleted per consensus..--Lemonaka (talk) 06:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Joyce Kim

Lack of notability and no associated English Wikipedia article. There is a redirect on the English Wikipedia to a person of the same name which goes to a target where W:WP:SURPRISE they are not mentioned. Association with bitcoin is often an attempt to be promotional.— User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 19:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 20:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

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.

Michael Hall

Lack of notability and no associated English Wikipedia article — User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 19:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete:ClockTickTock (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC) possible self-promotion. First source is of a personal page and it is not working. Second source is a Google+ personal profile.Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 20:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  • Per consensus (nominator) -- At the moment I'm per consensus on this unless something else comes up. In the event of a tie or no participation auggestion is to keep. User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 19:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete, lack of notability; possible self-promotion. Markjoseph125 (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Janet Frank

Lack of notability and no associated English Wikipedia article. Totally accept her musical skill but essentially represented here as an orchestra member. Her quotes in the publication might have to be independently noted. — User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 19:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 20:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I understand and do not object to deletion. - Rolf.Anderson Rolf.Anderson (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Joel Berry

Contest lack of notability prod with no summary as to why and no attempt as reason. In addition to no associated English Wikipedia article for this people article all the quotes are tweets with primary sources. — Djm-leighpark(a)talk 08:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 09:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Imam Ridha

Came to execute the long standing merge proposal but no discussion raised on target and no notification {{mergefrom}} on the target. But a bigger issue is how can the quote be verified. The phrases where Ridha is quoting phrases from other texts can be verified but the subjects discourse cannot. The probably is compounded by the length of the quote which is probably a large portion of the work. This is sufficient to block any merge and the problems seem too great to allow the article to stay. — Djm-leighpark(a)talk 23:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 00:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

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 Uprety (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Zachery VanderGraaff

Comntested PROD for lack of notability - the problem remains. — UDScott (talk) 13:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 14:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  • Delete. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. Lack of notability. Possible promotionalism. I might agree with what subject is about but that is not enough here. -- Djm-leighpark(a)talk 19:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. What is the accepted threshold for "notability?" There are many figures in music education which are notable to those in field (a field which I'm passionate about). I'm not upset, just curious what the standard is here. ZulwarnX (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. After reviewing the requirements for notability, I realize the bar is higher than I thought and advocate for deleting. Sorry for the confusion. -- ZulwarnX (talk) 11:50, 9 February 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.

Deepwoken

Contested Prod with for lack of notability with creator then disruptively editing article making it unfit to retain. Seems to be attempting to inherit notaility from a related entity — DeirgeDel tac 07:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 08:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Cadenabbia

Contested speedy deletion "Out of Project Scope" as geographical stub with has associated english Wikipedia article is viable for a Wikiquote Article. A problem here is the long quote from the Wordsworth Poem relates to Lake Como and not Cadenabbia which leaves the subject of the article with "no quotes". — DeirgeDel tac 06:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 07:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  • I've struck my delete vote and gone to neutral because my reason for being able to raise the VfD was that their there were no quotes on the article and a quote has been added. . I have some concern about the use of the whole poem as a quote but I leave that for the community. While I have contested the speedy I also note the nominator of the speedy has not participated in the VfD; and neither has the creator for that matter. -- DeirgeDel tac 04:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

M. A. Khan

Lack of notability concern. As the sources we have only identify the subject as "M. A. Khan" it turns out this is ambiguous and I previous incorrectly associate the article here with the English Wikipedia article M. A. Khan and it was only when following through this reversion d:Special:Diff/1840744851 that I realised my abandoned user Djm-leighpark's link Special:Diff/3227499 was a mistake. I have explored the possibility our subject here is Masood Ali Khan / d:Q6783825 but I am minded on the balance of probability they are likely not the same (There is a poor quality contribution on the enWP article that I have ignored. I have done some explores on VIAF, OCLC, the internet archive library and the Islam-watch website and have not found anything to make that linkage. I appreciate this author's writings may be contentious. A previous incarnation with this article title was deleted for an expired PROD. Would like to get communities view on article's retention or if additional information can be gleaned. Depending on how that is goes/is going I may make appropriate edits on Wikidata. Thankyou. — DeirgeDel tac 15:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 16:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nom. Markjoseph125 (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Comment: The nominator has not voted delete , only expressed concern. --ᘙ (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete, appears to lack notability. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. within the field of Ex-Muslim writers and activists, he is notable, as shown by comments from Ibn Warraq and Noni Darwish in the section M._A._Khan#Quotes_about_M._A._Khan and a google search shows that the person and work is relatively well known (here is an interview [7]). Because the person is an apostate (a capital offence), the article may be controversial to some - it is also suspicious that the link that DeirgeDel shows is an edit by a throwaway sock? account, User:PradeepBihar93, with one single edit on 24 February 2023 (it would not be the first time that socks have been deleting links from wikidata from articles about Ex-Muslims or related topics). Pinging also @Bookku: who has written a lot about this topic on wikiquote. --ᘙ (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ᘙ I observe you are the author of the Wikiquote article. You have chosen not to link it to the English Wikipedida M. A. Khan. The implication is the Wikiquote article and English Wikipedia article are not the same person. As the English Wikipedia article is associated with d:Q16015177 I am minded this Wikiquote article should not be associated with that data item. My big concern is there seem to be two or more "M. A. Khan"'s in existance. Do you for instance have further detains on the one in Wikiquote, Year of Birth; full name. Some way of reliably identifying works/quotes to this individual? I really don't think there is anything "suspicious" about my concerns. Thankyou. -- DeirgeDel tac 00:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought I was clear enough in writing that the single purpose account, User:PradeepBihar93, was "suspicious", not you. The author is known by the name M. A. Khan, which might also be a pseudonym (I'm not sure). --ᘙ (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Life's a Jungle: Africa's Most Wanted

Notability. No Wikipedia page. The one "quote" definitely does not meet the requirement for quotability. — Markjoseph125 (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 20:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Markjoseph125 (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fiyaz Mughal

No Wikipedia page except his own organization. Possible notability issue. Self-promotion. Overly politicized content. — Markjoseph125 (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 20:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC). Markjoseph125 (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete, as nominator. Markjoseph125 (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. Fiyaz Mughal is a redirect on the English Wikipedia and associated Wikidata item could be validly sitelinked to that in my opinion. The award of OBE, while not in itself notable, is a step towards notability. The associated organisation Tell MAMA is judged notable on enWQ and this article could be re-factored to match that if absolute necessary but that might be best done outside of VfD and I'm not sure such a re-factor is an optimal solution. -- DeirgeDel tac 08:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move to associated wikipedia article Tell MAMA. --ᘙ (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shubham Dongare

Lack of notability. Prod contested with no reason and no addressing of problem. — DeirgeDel tac 20:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 21:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Susan Wojcicki

Notable subject but repeatedly re-incarnated with no quotes. The quote chosen to fix the article reads like an attack on the subject and it a poor choice. There was a valid but far from optimal quote on the previous incarnation which in my opinion was inappropriately CSD'd at 23:49, 2 March 2023. (see [8] for history and possible pre-WQ:DRV this discussion with the deleting admin. — DeirgeDel tac 00:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 01:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Keep: Delete: (nominator) This incarnation needs to be deleted unless appropriate quotes can be found. I note its really unfortunate we are here but volunteers in good faith attempts to manage in the face of heavy disruption. I should be raising a DRV on the previous deletion of this article but I won't need to if this one is fixed. -- DeirgeDel tac 00:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Events have transpired that pragmatically this is the proper incarnation to run with; and my hurried addition to a quote on that was not the best quote, albeit seeing what comes to enWikiquote there appears to be a view that an incivility is often what some feel make a quote quoteable. I accept I'm not best at considering quotability, and that views on what is and is not good quotability varies across continents. Anyway inspired by Tamzin's possibly wrist slapping disruption of the current w:en:WP:RFA i've decided to mount a W:WP:HEY attempt after almost considering to go for quotes from subject's mother instead. -- DeirgeDel tac 08:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak delete seems unlikely to be a topic that will have any meaningful amount of quotations. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: It is helpful if an administrator could email me the text of the incarnation of this article that was deleted on 23:49, 2 March 2023. While the quote was of low quality may be useful to the survival of this article if I re-applied it myself to avoid any possible attribution issues. Thankyou. -- 00:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC) —This unsigned comment is by DeirgeDel (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete in its current form. When it was deleted earlier as part of addressing vandalism, I inadvertently missed that another user had added a quote. Here is what was added:
  • offer counsel and guidance across Google and the portfolio of Alphabet companies
    • Financial Times 16 February 2023. [9]
    • In a memo to employees of her standing dome from Chief Executive of Youtube and moving into a Google advisory role.
I would maintain that the added quote is still not a memorable one and that further additions are needed to make this a page worth keeping or recreating. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete, for reasons given above by all, as well as lack of quotability. Markjoseph125 (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: The article was modified with additional quotes 2023-03-09 in a W:WP:HEY attempt which may negate the reasoning behind some earlier comments. I observe that resource from The Wikipedia Library is likely to provide additional material for subject but I have no current access to that due to imposition of a necesary self-request block on DeirgeDel; though I would anticipate being able to get access again at some point soon. Thankyou. -- DeirgeDel tac 08:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alice Phoebe Lou

Created by sock User:Anutherconcerned [10] with puppet (per my W:WP:DUCK test assessment) taunting the community here. While per-se there there is nothing wrong with this article there is a question if content provided by block circumventers is allowed to remain or whether content should be reverted. — DeirgeDel tac 07:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Vote closes: 08:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete: (nominator). I wish there was an option here like on enWP. for a soft delete. Page salting may be required as re-creation my a sock is likely. -- DeirgeDel tac 07:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. While I understand the frustration in dealing with users who manipulate the site, taking this page on its face value, I see nothing to cause it to be deleted. Using the deletion process as retribution for bad behavior to remove legitimate pages just because of who created the page does not seem like something we should promote. I would rather see other avenues used to address the behavior that do not affect whether or not valid content is kept. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @UDScott: By saying "Using the deletion process as retribution for bad behavior to remove legitimate pages" you seem to be accusing me of retribution rather than a good faith action in which case blocking me would be in order, there is a custom of reverting block evading edits. However there is an issue that by leaving the page in place block evasion is condoned and supported and seen to be a winning strategy. I do appreciate you been away for a few days and come back into this situation - if you feel a discussion is the correct way to discuss/arbitrate this matter then set it up. -- DeirgeDel tac 17:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The action to delete an otherwise valid page for the sole reason that someone who acted poorly in other situations created it is what appears to have the feel of retribution. My apologies if I sounded accusatory - that was not my intent - rather I was warning against taking such action as it has that appearance. My feeling is that this specific page has nothing really wrong with it and if someone else had created it, there wouldn't even be a discussion. I can see taking other more direct action against someone who evades blocks, but why remove a valid page from the site? ~ UDScott (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are perhaps going towards possible course of action, which is that the community positively vetting for suitability and neutrality pages created on circumvention of a block. Which is what may happen here may be achieved by this VfD. This is one of a spread of articles created by the sock a proportion of which are legitimate and a proportion of which are POV pushing. But please excuse me for feeling administrators feel are assisting a smelly sock being pushed down my throat, albeit I AGF that is far from their intent and I am merely expressing my feelings. -- DeirgeDel tac 18:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I'm not quite understanding what you are saying in this last post. I am trying to comprehend your views - and believe me, I am not trying to be combative in any way. Are you still pushing for deletion of this page? Or something else? If the former, I would imagine that the page would be immediately recreated (by someone who is not a sock) since the page's subject certainly appears to be notable. If this is the case, then I don't understand the notion of deleting it in the first place (hence my Keep vote above). I'm just not sure the way we should treat contributions by problem users should be treated with a blanket approach (such as removal of all contributions by them, regardless of the value of the pages in question). IMHO, taking direct action (e.g. blocking) on such users is preferable to eliminating good content just because of its genesis. In any case, I've given my vote and will await the conclusion of this process to see where we end up. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@UDScott: The result of this VfD will be a precise community decision on how this community wishes to treat this particular article. -- DeirgeDel tac 20:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Deirge why do you refuse to do the opposite of the most basic rules? Be polite; Assume good faith No personal attacks. Clearly you are looking on the dark side and that is sad to see. 184.4.82.218 18:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Specifically Deirge, you are trying to push your POV by censoring perfectly good material - with a lame, ridiculous excuse - which is something you seem to have a habit of doing. Why do you think that's so? 184.4.82.218 18:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
. -- DeirgeDel tac 20:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. I did not read all of the back-and-forth above. My concern is with quotability. These are just (in my opinion) rather banal lyrics; nothing particularly quotable. Of course, in complete candor, I have that same problem with many pages, especially films (where much of what is supplied is not really quotable quotes, but just random snippets of dialogue), but also very minor musical groups. Markjoseph125 (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: Deirge - With all due respect, your 'fears' (if you're actually serious & not just saying that, in an attempt to create drama/make trouble) are totally unfounded & ridiculous in my opinion. There is nothing to fear. Thank you! Okthen-trytryagain (talk) 06:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User blocked per sockpuppetry and unresponsive to related questions. Lemonaka (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lashon Byrd

Lack of notability. Creator had linked to non-WMF imitation of English Wikipedia to fake notability. — DeirgeDel tac 23:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 00:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I was going through too quickly and got tripped up by it. I've restored the pages and the VFD tag. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:22, 7 March 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: consensus to delete.--Lemonaka (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Umar Farooq Gul

Lack of notability and seems to violate WQ:NOTPERSONAL policy albeit probably in good faith. Creator's actions following PROD per talk page and continued editing of article means high probability of PROD contestation so switch to VFD discussion. While Wikidata item d:Q116983225 and other language article exist I've requested the former for deletion. — DeirgeDel tac 09:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 10:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

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.

Kung Fu Panda: Secrets of the Scroll

Unaddressed, unsummarised, undiscussed contested no quotes Prod by anon ip. plus no demonstration of notability or verificabiity — DeirgeDel tac 19:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 20:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Delete: (nominator) - unless all problems above addressed. To be clear that if an non permanent anon IP is unable to co-operatively address a prod then I don't trust and script excepts added unless referenced by an in-source location. -- DeirgeDel tac 19:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Speedy delete for having no quotes. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • delete: Origin nominator for PROD, but removed by IP user. Lemonaka (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Recused: IP seemed to build up the content, maybe wait for a while.--Lemonaka (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Don't delete!: Please don't delete this page! That movie is about to expire from Netflix. We need it to stay so people can remember the quotes from this movie. 199.243.11.161 20:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Per their talk page this IP has removed the VfD tag for a second time after a VFDremove1 notice was issues for the first time. This is avoidance vandalism and wastes community time sorting it out. It also indicates likelihood even if blocked the IP would return under a different IP and disrespect the VfD process and recreate the article without going through the DRV process after a deletion discussion. I therefore request that, if deleted, this article is salted to force a DRV if it is felt a recreation is required. Thankyou. -- DeirgeDel tac 20:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cyberpunk: Edgerunners

Prod contested with no summary, discussion or addressing of the problem. Prod was for unreferenced. Lack of notability, and verificability are further concerns. Possibly just an excuse to post incivil language. Warning the page context contains incivil language. Unless all concerns are addressed I suggest vote delete. Please be aware the article contains incivil language. — DeirgeDel tac 07:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 08:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Delete: (nominator): Another example of how if it isn't foul, incivil language then some people are going to think its not quotable. I question whether Wikiquote should be leaving this material hosted when its completely unreferenced encouraging blatant abuse of this platform. -- DeirgeDel tac 07:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete, for lack of notability, and all reasons mentioned in nomination. Extreme lack of quotability. Markjoseph125 (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hu Xijin

The Global Times is the only publication cited in this article. w:WP:RSP applies here ("The Global Times is a tabloid owned by the Chinese Communist Party. It was deprecated near-unanimously in a 2020 RfC which found that it publishes false or fabricated information, including pro-Chinese government propaganda and conspiracy theories"), see: WQ:PG ("policies and guidelines from the Wikipedia project usually apply equally well to Wikiquote"). Philip Cross (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 15:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Delete, unless other quotes with valid sources are found. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. RSP must always be viewed in context. It is difficult to see that it would have misrepresented the statement of an editor. I also note with disappointment the creator was not contacted. Following this through there is a real risk of only anti-establishment Chinese journalists being quotable. -- DeirgeDel tac 12:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak delete. As GMG said, RSPS isn't a policy or guideline, should not be used for blanket mass deletions. while a Chinese state media source should be used with some caution and/or attribution, there is also a real risk of only anti-establishment Chinese journalists being quotable, per DeirgeDel. My concern for the delete vote is rather is that all the quotes were probably translated from the article creator and I believe that having articles where all quotes are self-translations is a concern because of lack of verifiability and accuracy. --ᘙ (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete, for lack of notability, and reasons given above. Markjoseph125 (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gilbert Mercier

w:WP:RSP applies here ("Due to persistent abuse, Global Research is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist...[the website] is considered generally unreliable due to its propagation of conspiracy theories and lack of editorial oversight. It is biased or opinionated, and its content is likely to constitute undue weight. As it often covers fringe material, parity of sources should be considered"), see: WQ:PG ("policies and guidelines from the Wikipedia project usually apply equally well to Wikiquote"). All quotes on this page are from Global Research. Philip Cross (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 15:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Emmerson Mnangagwa

The only quote in this article is from CGTN. w:WP:RSP applies here (w:Wikipedia:CGTN: "China Global Television Network was deprecated in the 2020 RfC for publishing false or fabricated information"), see: WQ:PG ("policies and guidelines from the Wikipedia project usually apply equally well to Wikiquote". Philip Cross (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 15:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Delete, unless other quotes with valid sources are found. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Keep, now that other validly sourced quotes have ben added - but I would still suggest removing the one from the questionable source. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • RSPS isn't a policy or guideline. I should know. I wrote most of the prose there. `GMGtalk 16:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep: The creator, who did not seem to be informed of the VfD, has today added additional quotes invalidating the nomination. -- DeirgeDel tac 16:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep per DeirgeDel --ᘙ (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. There may now be "quotes," but they are just drab politicians' statement, that is, lacking quotability. Markjoseph125 (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nicos Anastasiades

The only quote in this article is from CGTN. w:WP:RSP applies here (w:Wikipedia:CGTN: "China Global Television Network was deprecated in the 2020 RfC for publishing false or fabricated information"), see: WQ:PG ("policies and guidelines from the Wikipedia project usually apply equally well to Wikiquote").

Vote closes: 15:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Delete, unless other quotes with valid sources are found. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Keep, now that other validly sourced quotes have ben added - but I would still suggest removing the one from the questionable source. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep: Bit cross the nominator seemingly chose not to contact the creator as while not mandatory is best practice. Per position and length held its was always likely there would be quotes and I've added a couple which totally addresses the existing nomination arguement. -- DeirgeDel tac 11:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep per DeirgeDel --ᘙ (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak keep, not as drab as most politicians. Markjoseph125 (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Volkan Bozkır

The only quote here is from CGTN. w:WP:RSP applies here (w:Wikipedia:CGTN: "China Global Television Network was deprecated in the 2020 RfC for publishing false or fabricated information"), see: WQ:PG ("policies and guidelines from the Wikipedia project usually apply equally well to Wikiquote"). Philip Cross (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 15:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Delete, unless other quotes with valid sources are found. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Keep, now that other validly sourced quotes have ben added - but I would still suggest removing the one from the questionable source. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep, the articles creator, who was not notified of this VfD as far as I am aware, has today introduced an additional quote which is sufficient to invalidate this nomination in my opinion. -- DeirgeDel tac 21:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep per DeirgeDel --ᘙ (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. There may now be "quotes," but they are just drab, completely generic politicians' statement, that is, lacking quotability. Markjoseph125 (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rich Whitney

The only quote on this page is from Global Research. w:WP:RSP applies here ("Due to persistent abuse, Global Research is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist...[the website] is considered generally unreliable due to its propagation of conspiracy theories and lack of editorial oversight. It is biased or opinionated, and its content is likely to constitute undue weight. As it often covers fringe material, parity of sources should be considered.), see: WQ:PG ("policies and guidelines from the Wikipedia project usually apply equally well to Wikiquote"). Philip Cross (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 15:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Delete, unless other quotes with valid sources are found. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Keep, now that other validly sourced quotes have ben added - but I would still suggest removing the one from the questionable source. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep: I've added a quote which which should nullify the nomination. And can find more if necessary. Again I'm concerned the article creator was not notified of the VFD, which while not mandatory, would I feel have been highly appropriate in this case. -- DeirgeDel tac 22:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep per DeirgeDel --ᘙ (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. Not terrible. Markjoseph125 (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zeng Guang

The Global Times is the only source cited in this article. w:WP:RSP applies here ("The Global Times is a tabloid owned by the Chinese Communist Party. It was deprecated near-unanimously in a 2020 RfC which found that it publishes false or fabricated information, including pro-Chinese government propaganda and conspiracy theories", see: WQ:PG ("policies and guidelines from the Wikipedia project usually apply equally well to Wikiquote"). Philip Cross (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 15:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Delete, unless other quotes with valid sources are found. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Keep, now that other validly sourced quotes have ben added - but I would still suggest removing the one from the questionable source. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep: Again it seems they were not informed of the VfD but have discovered it and seem to have added at least one more quote. I too have added a quote published by Reuters and believe the argument for deletion is quashed. -- DeirgeDel tac 23:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep per DeirgeDel. --ᘙ (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. This seems more like news than quotes. I suppose since it has the proper form and sourcing we have to keep it, but I kind of doubt this is what people think of when they think of a compendium of quotes. Markjoseph125 (talk) 14:55, 19 March 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: consensus to delete.--Lemonaka (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Ukraine

Not used by what links here and no documentation on this Wiki how to use it. Probably some documentation on the the English Wikipedia but the user, now blocked, who copied it here did not copy the documentation. — DeirgeDel tac 20:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 21:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC).

  • Delete: (nominator) If used and undocumented this should be deleted. In the process of raising this I had a thought that this might be needed to support global User pages from meta that appear here virtually when no local user page exists. If this is the case this needs to be documented. -- DeirgeDel tac 20:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've just checked m:Template:Ukraine does not exists so concerns about it being used by a global userpage seem to be eliminated. -- DeirgeDel tac 04:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: An admin seems to have deleted this template good faith prematurely and if anyone needs it restoring please mention it here. Obviously Ukraine is in a arm conflict/operation situation and perhaps that why I checked out this template when browsing a category of templates. My nomination of this template has no significance in relation to the armed operation/conflict in Ukraine, it is simply the the template is/was undocumented and unused. If anyone needs to verify that please request a restoration. Thankyou. -- DeirgeDel tac 13:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've restored this template for now - it should at least remain until this discussion is ended. It may very well still be deleted after that, but this discussion should end with a decision about it first. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@UDScott Sorry, I dealt with it prematurely. Lemonaka (talk) 17:25, 17 March 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: consensus to delete.--Lemonaka (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Wiggles TV Series

Nonsense. Poor and ambiguous page subject with no references and links. It is important to precisely specify whether the intention is to provide quotes for a single series or all series. There is an ambiguity of the page name "The Wiggles TV Series" and the title "The Wiggles: TV Series 2". This is a problem as there is no definition of where this is going. From a notability viewpoint there is few issues as The Wiggles and List of The Wiggles episodes. However there are real problems and effort required manage the a possible sprawl especially on Wikidata. While it is possible to work with a user with a consistent account on these matters a (probable dynamic IP user) is near impossible to work with and has no consequence of repeat poor performance and soaks up a lot of volunteer resource cleaning up the mess. — DeirgeDel tac 09:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 10:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Delete (nominator): Unreferenced. unverifiable. Not linked to a Wikipedia Article. -- 09:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. --ᘙ (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Markjoseph125 (talk) 14:57, 19 March 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.

Gaurav mahaur

Lack of notabilty. Contented spam speedie delete with no explanation. Lead section not English. — DeirgeDel tac 18:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 19:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC).

  • Delete: (nominator). -- DeirgeDel tac 18:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: Page has been vandalised by removal of {{Vfd-new}}. I'm not going to waste my energy edit waring against likely IP-hoppers. If an admin wants to protect the page that's fine. -- DeirgeDel tac 21:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. The person named and described in the introduction is not the author quoted nor author of the captioned books. Whether this is a case of mistaken identity, or something malicious, the page must be deleted. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Markjoseph125 (talk) 14:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

William Sanjour

Unreferenced and no indication of notability in lead section and no corresponding article on the English Wikipedia. VFD raised following Speedie decline. — DeirgeDel tac 00:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 01:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Delete: (nominator) -- 00:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment: (article creator)
I've added sources for each quote using the citation template, but I think there's an inputting error on my end: the citation seems to disappear?  
I'm also in-progress of making a Wikipedia article; w:Draft:William Sanjour has numerous sources collected.
TypistMonkey (talk) 03:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @TypistMonkey: There's little point expecting people to look at a w:WP:CITEBOMB on an English Wikipedia draft. I have more respect for an article that has been persisted part w:WP:NPP. Removal of notification template on a previous article of yours (albeit by Viriditas not by yourself) with the disparging attacks in the edit summary against NPP patroller Onel5969 might not do you any favors. Suggest you present your w:WP:THREE best sources here please as proper citations not bare URLs if you're not going to get your English Wikipedia Article persisted. Thankyou. -- DeirgeDel tac 06:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Art Mikveh

Contested SD - Lack of notability. Only referenced quotfrom IMDb which could be placed by anybody — DeirgeDel tac 07:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote closes: 08:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Delete: (nominator) -- DeirgeDel tac 07:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep: The subject is pretty notable according to his IMDb page he has national noteriety and while you make a very good point about the IMDb further research reveals it is an actual quote and referenced in his popular songs "See Me" Therefore I vote to keep it up and will appreciate any positive feed back on how to improve it but it meets the criteria for inclusion. Wikisidekick (talk) 09:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Markjoseph125 (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott (talk) 00:24, 20 March 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: Consensus to delete. Lemonaka (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)