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 (though if you find that daunting, EVula is more than happy to do so).

Reviewing closed votes

All closed votes will be archived indefinitely in per-month pages at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Log. (A few are still found only in the old Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive.) See that page for details.

Deletion candidates

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. There is no consensus to delete at this point in time. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

Psychological manipulation

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

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

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

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

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

I was specifically told by UDScott not to make a page for Male pregnancy, despite that being a Wikipedia page. Were I to do so, I doubt using your argument here would be effective in forcing the vote off site onto Wikipedia, which, by the way, isn't where we hold votes for Wikiquote, FYI. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
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: Kept. There is no consensus to delete at this point in time. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

Violence in media

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

  • Vote closes: 17:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. CensoredScribe has collected excellent quotations in this article and now nominated it for deletion. For specialized topics, standard of quotability is usefulness to researchers on the topic, the intended audience. Users reading the corresponding wikipedia article will be glad to have these references. This article is linked and gets ~ 80 views per day. Topic is notable. Quotes on specialized topics are valuable to researchers on the topic and to visitors of the corresponding Wikipedia page. It is a good page. I hope we can keep it. ~ Peter1c (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
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: Kept. There is no consensus to delete at this point in time. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

Medicine in Star Trek

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

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

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

This will probably be the last time I nominate anything for Vfd given the geological time scales involved here, however "Wikipedia did it" is a terrible reasoning and every single administrator here knows it. I really shouldn't have to explain to you of all people why having a page for Lightsabers or The One Ring opens up the flood gates to a sewer of pop culture pages we don't need, regardless of how many media studies journals have articles about a particular element of a fictional work. The page you created for LGBT in science fiction television lets me know this is a knee jerk reaction to not getting your way on something. More importantly Peter1c, I'm concerned about how your one-liner canned response of a reason is going to apply to actually important pages we don't need, like mulatto, and the rest of the rainbow of racist terminology for combinations of incalculable Blood quanta and stations of the colonial casta system, which I'm assuming you'd now claim you have no problem with, "Cause Wikipedia". If you really and truly would prefer I ramble with you here about the importance or lack there of of the minutia of X pop culture franchises more obscure features that we both know you hate for diverting attention from religion/literature, I will gladly join you in polluting this wiki with thousands of nerd articles from the depths of Wikipedia, than debate them with you on this off topic soapbox with an extremely limited audience of people willing to waste their time listening to you playing opposites day and me be a snide critic, that's what I do for Uncyclopedia, amongst other things like nominate terrible ideas for pages for vfd. At least on Uncyclopedia, unlike here, 5 people will actually bother to vote in a week, even if it's for a page about poop jokes. I have the feeling after about 10 of these types of articles turn vfd into an unreadable series of rants, one if not both of us will be up for a ban, you are acting in a way that is highly disruptive and others can quote your sources, we are both replaceable as editors. Playing bizarre and impulsive head games with you is not what I came here to do, and I doubt it's what you came here to do either. I bid you good day sir. CensoredScribe (talk) 05:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
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: Kept. There is no consensus to delete. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

Harold Wallace Rosenthal

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

  • Vote closes: 18:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Keep: you don't need actual verified quotes from a person, notes on disputed/misattributed/fabricated ones would be enough. I haven't seen 'fabricated' before, would you object to changing that to 'misattibuted'? That's what I usually see. this April 2019 article refers to the documen. It IS a famous fabrication, and a quote from SOMEONE. Probably not Rosenthal, but without knowing who actually wrote it, putting it under the person it's attributed to is the only logical place for it. Olivia comet (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
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. Please restart only with any reliable quote.--Jusjih (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC).

Scarlet Jei Saoirse

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

  • Vote closes: 16:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless validly sourced quotes are provided. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete because IMDB is not a reliable source for quotations. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - no reliable sources. ~riley (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. per above, IMDB is not a relaible source. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:57, 25 April 2020
  • Keep Valid Source

(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: Kept. There is no consensus to delete at this point in time. ~riley (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC).

Donald Trump on social media

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

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

  • Vote closes: 13:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. Trump conducts state business on Twitter. For instance, quotes like
    • "To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE."
    • "I must, in the strongest of terms, ask Mexico to stop this onslaught - and if unable to do so I will call up the U.S. Military and CLOSE OUR SOUTHERN BORDER!"
    • "please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow...... ....Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military."
    • "if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have..... ....targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD."
  • should not be removed merely because they were posted to social media. If there's really a policy against quoting a world leader's social media, that policy needs to change. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. I understand the point GreenMeansGo is making - and I would not like to see a similar page created for most other people. But I agree with Robin Lionheart that Donald Trump seems to be an exception to this, as he uses Twitter on a daily basis to conduct business and communicate with the world. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. Since his posts in social media are "official statements by the president of the United States." Ellen DeGeneres and Katy Perry don't hold that position, atleast not yet. If someday in the future they become POTUS and their social media posts are also considered official statements then that could merit the creation of those articles. On the "random crap", this was also common in US politics before social media. Rupert Loup 02:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
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.

Mark of shame

There seems to be no reason for this redirect pointing to Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The only links to the redirect were (until I edited them out just now) a random quote from the Baldur's Gate series that used the phrase "mark of shame", and the one quote that uses the phrase in the Pahlavi article itself. I have no idea why this redirect was even made, or wikilinks to it added to an unrelated article and to the article the redirect points to - but the redirect clearly serves no purpose, and even besides that, the Pahlavi article is not a logical or predictable destination for such a redirect. — V2Blast (talk) 04:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Unrelated redirect which still wouldn't make sense if pointed to right destination. dibbydib (T · C) Project Stub 00:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Vote closes: 01:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, dibbydib (T · C) Project Stub 00:57, 28 April 2020 (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. BD2412 T 05:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Akshay Makadiya

Spam and self advertise— Kabirkhan22 (talk) 10:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 11:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - I couldn't find anything wrong with the information he added, enough citation from the legit and Notable sources.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 43.241.145.140 (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2020
— 43.241.145.140 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep - Sounds Legitimate Haisebhai (talk) 12:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
— Haisebhai (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete. Not remotely notable. Web posts at a handful of vanity sites with no editorial oversight do not make someone a journalist, and a user group with no affiliation is just a fan club. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
—This unsigned comment is by Axymakofficial (talk • contribs) 09:13, 26 April 2020‎.
  • Keep. The notability of a person is established by the existence of corresponding links and articles. Dassu92128 (talk) 09:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
— Dassu92128 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • keep. I think the person doesn’t have a Wikipedia and it needs to be cleaned up to remove all the extra quotes that aren’t notable, but there’s nothing wrong with the articles as a whole. Praspeaks (talk) 05:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
— Praspeaks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Pinging admins @Koavf: and @~riley: for faster consensus on potential sockpuppetry dibbydib (T · C) Project Stub 01:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment


The user Kabirkhan22, who flagged the page as Spam and self advertise is a sock puppet account personally targeting the page. I've got a list of proof to prove his vandalism.

1. The vandal is trying to delete all the records present on wiki including wiki data. Check the revision history of the page - Q91833255, The Vandal has used his sock puppet accounts to defame and tried to delete the page by more than SIX times.

2. Here is the list of sock puppet accounts he used, just to delete the page. You won't find a single contribution from these accounts apart removing the content.

3. Apart from this, I tried to find the location of those accounts, and here is the report that clearly reveals the intention of the reporter. (Click on IP to know to find detailed information.)

IP ISP City State Country
2405:205:140A:A22A:89FD:30AE:7626:4DF4 Jio Jaipur Rajasthan India
2405:205:140A:A22A:0:0:496:78A4 Jio Jaipur Rajasthan India
2409:4052:68C:8E9F:0:0:16F6:58A5 Jio Jaipur Rajasthan India
157.47.128.110 Jio Jaipur Rajasthan India
2409:4052:2E8D:1560:B494:50D0:B401:A23A Jio Jaipur Rajasthan India
2409:4052:2308:C002:5064:B557:A3FB:2101 Jio Jaipur Rajasthan India

4. The above reasons clearly indicate that it was an attempt to delete the page and he succeeds in taking the page down, misguiding the admins, and wasting the time.

5. Surprisingly, at the time of writing this message, again, he tried to delete the content of page Q91833255 after admin blocked me, so I can't restore the page. Furthermore, he is trying to reach out to other administrators and asking to delete the page. It clearly indicates how desperate he is.

It is my humble request to restore the page and lock it so he can't edit the same from another IP. Thank you again.

UPDATE (April 27)- Despite the warning by @Nikki: on the Q91833255, The spammer has again started his vandalism on the page. with the (2405:205:140a:a22a:c09a:c15f:44bb:314) same GEO Location he deleted the site links and Reporting to Admin like a kid.

Could you please help me to get rid of this Vandal.

UPDATE - The IP added the advertising spam template is a part of this sockpuppet accounts. Please check the Geolocation and ISP of the reporter IP - ‎ (2405:205:140a:a22a:c09a:c15f:44bb:314) - It is the same as all previous IPs.

All the IPs mentioned above are used to report my account nothing else. So please consider is personal defamation and took appropriate actions. I already reported this to @Nikki:, @Ningauble: and @Ymblanter:. NO RESPONSE.

Pinging Editor @Dibbydib: admins @Koavf: and @~riley: for faster consensus on potential sockpuppetry
To @Dassu92128, Praspeaks, Axymakofficial: this definitely smells fishy but I don't know that CU or blocking is necessary at this juncture. Just note that your !votes above are very weak and unconvincing, so unless something dramatic happens in the next few days, this will definitely be deleted. If you are the same person, please cease using multiple accounts. If you are separate individuals who have an interested in actually contributing here, this is probably not the best entry to get started. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
One, two, three, four Ah, the rare sock war. Can definitely confirm that both of these are using sock(/meat)puppets based on contribution dates and that barely any of them have even close to 5 or more edits. Also {{Ping}} isn't working for me. dibbydib (T · C) Project Stub 21:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2020 (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.

User:Ariadne libera

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: Speedily deleted. (Non-admin closure) dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 02:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Clearly spam. Apologies if I messed this up, I usually only edit on the English Wikipedia. — TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Vote closes: 21:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete, as inappropriate use of userspace as a web-host, and blatant spam. Also tagging on the page! dibbydib (T · C) Project Stub 08:56, 7 May 2020 (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. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

Annelisa Walter

Non notable person and quotes, also unsourced. Google also doesn't turn up much, safe to say this might be a collection of self-made quotes — dibbydib (T · C) Project Stub 08:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Vote closes: 09:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nom. I would have actually performed a speedy deletion for this one. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom.--Pratap Pandit (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2020 (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. There is consensus to delete at this point in time. ~riley (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC).

Christian Canlubo

No quotability nor significance, probably just some random guy that wanted to make their own article — dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 23:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Vote closes: 00:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nom (and as it is a contested PROD). ~ UDScott (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Quakewoody (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2020 (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: Kept. There is no consensus to delete at this point in time. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

Shrikant Talageri

non notable academic who has been involved in a very minor academic disagreement. Appears to be promotional. Deleted on Wikipedia — Pratap Pandit (talk) 11:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Vote closes: 12:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

as examples among recently created articles that are notable. The subject is author of at least four published books. They have been substantially discussed by among others Edwin Bryant, Hans Hock, Girilal Jain, N.S. Rajaram, K. Elst, Michael Witzel, Arnaud Fournet, and Vaclav Blažek. Also in the subject he is writing about he made some unique contributions. A major work in the subject area Talageri is writing about is the book by Bryant & Patton which included a paper by Talageri. Pratap was already criticized for the hounding against me and Rupert, by for example going through dozens of articles edited by me or User:Rupert loup and making spurious claims, for harassing, for hounding, for stalking, and for not being WQ:CIVIL.

Rupert loup already told Pratap many times:

This is hounding, you should stop stalking and making baseless accusations. WQ:CIVIL and WQ:WQT.

--დამოკიდებულება (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Passing mentions dont count as significant coverage. The subject lacks significant coverage in independent reliable media. See Ad Hominem --Pratap Pandit (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
A 23,500+ words review in a journal by Harvard professor is "passing mention"? Just for one of the examples. If you don't know what you're talking about you shouldn't nominate for deletion. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Considering there are several quotes not only from the person but about the person, I'd have to go for a slight keep in this intance. This is quite a quality article. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 00:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable, all pages you cited as an example of "notable" subject articles have been created very recently (April-May 2020). --Xsaorapa (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC) I withdraw my vote --Xsaorapa (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2020 (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: Kept. There is no consensus to delete at this point in time. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

Ramesh Nagaraj Rao

Non notable author. Appears to be promotional. — Pratap Pandit (talk) 09:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

as examples among recently created articles that are notable. The subject is author of several published books [1] (at least 5 books) and is also a noted columnist and professor. He was awarded the prestigious K. M. Munshi award, has written for Washington Post (Washington, D. C.) and The Guardian (London), is executive council member of the Hindu American Foundation.

Pratap was already criticized for the hounding against me and Rupert, by for example going through dozens of articles edited by me or User:Rupert loup and making spurious claims, for harassing, for hounding, for stalking, and for not being WQ:CIVIL.

Rupert loup already told Pratap many times:

This is hounding, you should stop stalking and making baseless accusations. WQ:CIVIL and WQ:WQT.

--დამოკიდებულება (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

დამოკიდებულება is the creator. Passing mentions and citations dont count as significant coverage. The subject lacks significant coverage in independent reliable media. See Ad Hominem --Pratap Pandit (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Vote closes: 10:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Weak delete, can't find much on this and I don't think it should be a suitable addition for wikiquote - I'm gonna have to go with my gut on this one dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 00:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
He is cited and quoted hundreds of times by academic sources [2] [3]. He has published over 6 books at least, such as this one: Intercultural Communication: The Indian Context. I have seen many articles on wikiquote about less notable persons. He is also quoted in many books such as the book "Selling Yoga: From Counterculture to Pop Culture" --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm more interested in the references mentioning Ramesh, not from Ramesh himself. However, Ramesh does seem especially notable in this case, I'm going for keep on this one now. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 04:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • 'Delete. Not notable, all pages you cited as an example of "notable" subject articles have been created very recently (April-May 2020). --Xsaorapa (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC) I withdraw my vote --Xsaorapa (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Not to barge in, but reference dates shouldn't be (and I've never seen it be) a factor of whether or not the subject is notable. Reliable, secondary, non-trivial mentions of the subject in sources should be what I'd consider notable, and from the ones listed above, it checks out. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 04:50, 28 May 2020 (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: Kept. There is no consensus to delete at this point in time. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

Neethi P.

A run of the mill lecturer, with no evidence what makes this person notable. Quotes are copyright violations.— Pratap Pandit (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Vote closes: 12:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep: Neethi was cited in several academic works, like for example:

- Rupert Loup 11:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Rupert Loup is the creator of this page. Papers published by the person, Passing mentions and one liners don't count as significant coverage. The subject lacks significant coverage in Independent reliable media.--Pratap Pandit (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@Rupert loup: When you're putting in your two cents on a VfD it's often customary to disclose any affiliations with the subject i.e. "Keep as creator" dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 04:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. I will have it in mind for the next time. Rupert Loup 09:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Weak delete: My saying goes that "if an article is on Wikipedia, it might be a good for Wikiquote", and I couldn't find a Wikipedia article on there. From what else I've found, Neethi P is on the ropes of notability right now. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 04:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Merge into COVID-19 pandemic in India: subject shouldn't deserve their own article based on notability but quotes from them in another article is more than appreciated. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 04:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Dibbydib: Wikipedia is not an authority in discern notability, it has a serious problem of systemic bias in coverage. What determine the notability is the she has been reported in several reliable secondary sources, as I demostrate above. Also Neethi not only write about the pandemic and she didn't gain notability because of that. Two Three of the sources that I presented are academic peer reviews of her book Globalization Lived Locally. Also she has been awarded with the Fulbright-Nehru Doctoral and Professional Research Fellowships 2011-12 by the Fulbright Program. (p. 4) Rupert Loup 07:58, 25 May 2020 (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: Kept. There is no consensus to delete at this point in time. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

Mekhala Krishnamurthy

A run of the mill professor, with no evidence what makes this person notable. Google hits are articles written by herself. Quotes are copyright violations. — Pratap Pandit (talk) 12:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Vote closes: 13:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep: Krishnamurthy has been cited by several sources:

- Rupert Loup 12:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Rupert Loup is the creator of this page. Passing mentions and one liners don't count as significant coverage. The subject lacks significant coverage in Independent reliable media.--Pratap Pandit (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Strong keep as per Rupert. Although the article's quotes consist of one piece of media I feel like it's too early into the article's development to delete it. Plenty of other quotes and notable sources are out there, it's best to wait and develop the article for a few months. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 04:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
The page was also made only two days prior to the deletion message, it's best to cleanup the page rather then call for an outright deletion. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 04:42, 28 May 2020 (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: Kept. There is no consensus to delete at this point in time. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

Armin Rosencranz

A lawyer and a blogger. No evidence of notability as reliable media don't cover this subject. — Pratap Pandit (talk) 12:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Vote closes: 13:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep: Rosencranz is an award winning academic, who is cited hundred of times by academic sources, now that you can't delete my quotes by those bogus copyright claims you are tring to gaming the system with mass deletion requests. And you keep hounding me despite that I told you shold stop. Rupert Loup 13:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)"
Rupert Loup is the creator of this page. "Teacher of the year award of a college" is not a notable award. Passing mentions and one liners dont count as significant coverage. The subject lacks significant coverage in Independent reliable media. See Ad Hominem, this article was suggested in an earlier VfD. And I found that it is not notable. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't see the article mentioned in that VfD, what I see is that you are also hounding other editors besides me. Rupert Loup 14:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Oops wrong link. This spam was suggested here. Again, please read Ad Hominem --Pratap Pandit (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
So is დამოკიდებულება who is hounding me here. I ask you both that don't involve me in your personal disputes. @UDScott: I think that admins should intervene here. Rupert Loup 14:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
There is no personal dispute. The community can easily judge a spam vs a notable person.--Pratap Pandit (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
He was awarded by the Stanford University, the Fulbright Program, and by Phi Beta Kappa which is offen described as the most prestigious honor society in the United States. Seems like this is another case of 'I just don't like it'. Rupert Loup 15:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Rupert, can you read? I never said it was spam, these were Pratap's words.

This is what I said: There are many wikiquote articles that don't have wikipedia articles , but are notable such as: [Examples of notable articles with no corresponding wikipedia articles]as examples among recently created articles that are notable.

I was only giving examples of notable articles with no corresponding wikipedia articles that I was aware of. Like you, I don't believe that a corresponding wikipedia article proves anything about notability.

Pratap was deleting articles on this basis, so I had to give counter-examples, of which I was aware of at the time. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2020 (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.

Jack the Ripper

Very poorly written and unreferenced. Jack is most certainly notable but if we were to clean this article up, it would require a full rewrite of the entire article. — dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 04:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Vote closes: 05:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep I've done some cleanup and formatting. Should be okay as a stub for now. GMGtalk 15:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Nicholas Kazanas

Fails Wikiquote:Notability and WQ:Quotability. Also deleted on Wikipedia. — Xsaorapa (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

as examples among recently created articles that are notable. The subject is author of several published books. They have been substantially discussed, for example in Journal of Indo-European Studies, Vol. 31. Or by Michael Witzel.

I have already suspected that the VfDs were part of the meatpuppet instructions Xsaorapa gave to Pratap, and now this VfD adds further confirmation. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Weak keep: these are on par with Pratap's deletion nominations, all of which were kept after votes closed. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 03:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Vote closes: 21:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The Little Bear Movie

There are pages related to Phineas and Ferb, pages related to DuckTales, but no pages related to Miraculous: Tales of Ladybug & Cat Noir on this wiki at this time. Pages related to Little Bear, Justin Time or Sid the Science Kid are not allowed on this wiki. 206.54.194.6 18:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Vote closes: 19:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep: I'm not sure I understand the rationale presented in this nomination. But it does appear that this is a legitimate film and the quotes appear to be real. So I fail to see a clear reason why this page should be deleted. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete: The pages Phineas and Ferb and DuckTales (2017 TV series) already exist on this wiki, but the page Miraculous: Tales of Ladybug & Cat Noir doesn't exist on this wiki at least for now, and "The Little Bear Movie" is related to Little Bear, is a notoriously bad film, it's characters are not according to values and they even say bad words in it. So delete it very soon and this reason is very clear and concise. 206.54.194.6 18:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Votes_for_deletion&oldid=2810052"