Wikiquote:Votes for deletion

Votes for deletion is the process where the community discusses whether a page should be deleted or not, depending on the consensus of the discussion.

Please read and understand the Wikiquote deletion policy before editing this page.

  • Explain your reasoning for every page you list here, even if you think it is obvious.
  • Always be sure to sign your entry or vote, or it will not be counted.

The process

Requesting deletions

To list a single article for deletion for the first time, follow this three-step process:

I: Put the deletion tag on the article.
Insert the {{vfd-new}} tag at the top of the page.
  • Please do not mark the edit as minor.
  • Use the edit summary to indicate the nomination; this can be as simple as "VFD".
  • You can check the "Watch this page" box to follow the page in your watchlist. This allows you to notice if the VfD tag is removed by a vandal.
  • Save the page.
II: Create the article's deletion discussion page.
Click the link saying "this article's entry" to open the deletion-debate page.
  • Copy the following: {{subst:vfd-new2| pg=PAGENAME| text=REASONING — ~~~~}}. Replace PAGENAME with the name of the page you're nominating, and REASONING with an explanation of why you think the page should be deleted. Note that the signature/timestamp characters (~~~~) are placed inside the braces {{ }}, not outside as with standard posts.
  • Explanations are important when nominating a page for deletion. While it may be obvious to you why a page should be deleted, not everyone will understand and you should provide a clear but concise explanation. Please remember to sign your comment by putting ~~~~ at the end.
  • Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
  • Save the page.
III: Notify users who monitor VfD discussion.
Copy the tag below, and then click  THIS LINK  to open the deletion log page. At the bottom of the log page, insert:
{{subst:vfd-new3 | pg=PAGENAME}}

replacing PAGENAME appropriately.

  • Please include the name of the nominated page in the edit summary.
  • Save the page. Your insertion will be automatically expanded to the same form as the preceding lines in the file: {{Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/PAGENAME}}.
  • Consider also adding {{subst:VFDNote|PAGENAME}} ~~~~ to the talk page of the article's principal contributor(s).

Note: Suggestions for requesting deletion of multiple pages, non-article pages, and repeat nominations may be found at VFD tips.

Voting on deletions

Once listed, the entire Wikiquote community is invited to vote on whether to keep or delete each page, or take some other action on it. Many candidate articles will have specific dates by which to vote; if none is given, you can assume at least seven days after the article is listed before the votes are tallied.

To vote, jump or scroll down to the entry you wish to vote on, click its "edit" link, and add your vote to the end of the list, like one of these:

  • Keep. ~~~~
  • Delete. ~~~~
  • (other actions; explain) ~~~~
  • Comment (not including action) ~~~~

Possible other actions include Merge, Rename, Redirect, Move to (sister project). Please be clear and concise when describing your action.

The four tildes (~~~~) will automatically add your user ID and a timestamp to your vote. This is necessary to ensure each Wikiquotian gets only a single vote. You can add some comments to your vote (before the tildes) to explain your reasons, but it is not required. However, it may help others to decide which way to vote.

Please do not add a vote after the closing date and time; any late vote may be struck out and ignored by the closing admin.

NOTE: Although we use the term "vote", VfD is not specifically a democratic process, as we have no way of verifying "one person, one vote". It is designed to "take the temperature" of the community on a subject. Sysops have the responsibility of judging the results based on a variety of factors, including (besides the votes) policies, practices, precedents, arguments, compromises between conflicting positions, and seriousness of the participants.

Closing votes and deleting articles

Sysops have the responsibility to review the list and determine what articles have achieved a consensus, whether it is for deletion, preservation, or some other action. All candidate articles should be listed here at least seven days before the votes are tallied. Many VfD entries will have "Vote closes" notices to indicate when the votes will be tallied.

  • The sysop tallying the vote should add a "vote closed" header with the result of the vote, and sign it.
  • If consensus is for deletion, the sysop should follow the deletion process to delete the article.
  • If it is to keep, or if there is no consensus for action, the sysop should remove the {{vfd-new}} tag from the article and post a notice on the article's talk page about the completed VfD, including a link to the VfD discussion on that article. The {{vfd-kept-new}} template can be used for a standard notice.
  • There may also be a vote to move (rename) or otherwise change the article. The sysop's actions will depend on the specific situation in these cases. In those cases, a notice should also be posted on the talk page documenting the decision.

To avoid conflict of interest, a sysop should never close a VfD that he or she started. However, a sysop may close a VfD in which he or she has voted.

After a reasonable time, a sysop will then move the entire entry into the appropriate month page of the VfD log. (Some old discussions are available only in the old Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive.)

Note: In the interest of cross-wiki cooperation, please check Wikipedia to make sure their articles don't link back to an article that has just been deleted. Also de-link any other language edition articles (though if you find that daunting, EVula is more than happy to do so).

Reviewing closed votes

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

Deletion candidates

Jim Henson

This article was {{prod}} because "No sourced quotes". The tag was removed without curing the defect, which brings it here. — Ningauble (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 18:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as nom, without prejudice to creation of an article on this notable person with actual, sourced quotes. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above points unless reliable sources are found. --Rubbish computer (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:People by status

"By status" is a fairly meaningless categorization. The corresponding Wikipedia category is a grab bag of totally unrelated classifications. To quote Borges:

These ambiguities, redundances, and deficiences recall those attributed by Dr. Franz Kuhn to a certain Chinese encyclopedia entitled Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge. On those remote pages it is written that animals are divided into (a) those that belong to the Emperor, (b) embalmed ones, (c) those that are trained, (d) suckling pigs, (e) mermaids, (f) fabulous ones, (g) stray dogs, (h) those that are included in this classification, (i) those that tremble as if they were mad, (j) innumerable ones, (k) those drawn with a very fine camel's hair brush, (l) others, (m) those that have just broken a flower vase, (n) those that resemble flies from a distance.
Jorge Luis Borges, "The Analytical Language of John Wilkins", in Otras Inquisiciones (1937–1952) (1952)

~ Ningauble (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 19:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Addendum—I am indifferent as to whether or not Category:People by status is deleted, provided Category:Refugees and Category:Unidentified people have a place to go.  In that event, I abstain.  Otherwise, keepallixpeeke (talk) 23:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Second addendum—I recently created Category:Slaves and initially put it into Category:People by status.  Doing so, however, reminded me that this is up for deletion.  Subsequently, I took the initiative and moved all three categories into Category:People.  I therefore officially declare my vote to be abstain.  That said, if the consensus turns out to be "keep," I will recommend that the three categories be moved back to Category:People by statusallixpeeke (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

William Fergus Martin

This article was {{prod}} because "This writer does not appear to be sufficiently notable for a Wikiquote article." The tag was removed with the explanation "Resolved the issue by adding sources", but no indication of notability has been provided. — Ningauble (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 16:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as nom. Notwithstanding considerable promotional efforts online, neither the author nor his book nor his self-promotional "foundation" have attained any real notability, and reference to his book and websites have been expunged from Wikipedia as "self-promotional nonsense (SPA accounts)". ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep—This person's self-promotion aside, the individual has authored a book that's been published.  I regard that as notable.  allixpeeke (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ningauble's points. --Rubbish computer (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Saurabh Dudeja

Promotion of a non-notable writer. The claim that his book was a bestseller is entirely bogus. Wikipedia articles on the author and his book are slated for imminent deletion. — Ningauble (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 16:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as nom. Note that the contributor, who is indefinitely blocked at Wikipedia for promotional editing, advertised himself as an "Online Marketing, PR/Wikipedia Expert" until he took the ad down after being caught out at the Conflict of interest noticeboard. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep—Promotions aside, the individual has authored a book that's been published.  I regard that as notable.

    If it is true that Love You Forever Only In That Way was not a bestseller in India, then the false claim should definitely be removed.  That said, we must be sure first that it was not a bestseller.  Currently, Amazon claims it was a national bestseller, but I don't know how vigourously Amazon verifies such things.  allixpeeke (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

    • itself does not make this claim. Amazon only attempts to verify that "Product Description" submissions are from the actual author, publisher, or seller. I am very sure that a book which does not appear in any published bestseller list and has a total of zero (0) editorial reviews is not a "national bestseller" by any rational definition. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Anybody can claim their book is a bestseller, and even plaster it on the book cover, if they do not regard truth as an obstacle to promotion. In this case, truth does not appear to be an obstacle to also claiming in the cover that a paid press release from his high school buddies is an endorsement by International Business Times. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ningauble's points. --Rubbish computer (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Also note that this is wide spread publicity stunt across many wikis. His book articles and bio article on are also up for deletion. Dharmadhyaksha (talk) 08:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

ABC model of flower development

I fail to see how the lone quote on this quite narrow subject rises to the level of being pithy or memorable in any way. Instead it reads more like a passage from a dry textbook - which I do not believe is the aim here. — UDScott (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 14:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I believe this goes too far. Obscure fragment of text on an obscure topic. See Wikiquote:Quotability#Notability of the subject: "Quotes on a less notable subject may still merit inclusion, but they must be shown to have a stronger case for inclusion based on factors such as the notability of the speaker and the quality of the quote itself". BD2412 T 14:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree that the quote is moderately obscure and is not particularly pithy or memorable – Goethe is noted for a number of much more eloquent and famous writings. I disagree that the quote is even obscurely about the subject as defined – Goethe's observations on plant morphology do not refer in any way to a specific genetic model formulated 200 years later. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment—Although I am not remotely familiar with this topic, the Goethe quote seems to be important enough to the topic that it is included in the topic's introductory section on Wikipedia.  Given this, I have to suspect that there may be some meaningful historical significance relating this quote to the topic, and if that is actually the case, then the dryness of the quote would definitely be a non-factor.  Suffice it to say, I don't have a de jure problem with specialised topics, and since I am not familiar enough with botany to say how obscure or non-obscure this topic is within that field, I do not feel comfortable providing my assent to the pro-deletion camp on the obscurity grounds.  (It does appear, though, at least pertinent enough to botany that a link to the topic is included in Wikipedia's Botany template.)  That said, the Wikipedia article says, "The ABC model of flower development was first formulated by George Haughn and Chris Somerville in 1988."  It would seem, therefore, that a definite improvement can be made to this article through inclusion of one or more related quotes from one of those two writers.  (While Y-S.Ko has uploaded a number of quotes to the page since the addition of this deletion notice (the Enrico Coen quotes seeming to be the most quotable among them), she or he has unfortunately not (at least hitherto) uploaded any quotes from either George Haughn or Chris Somerville.)  Lastly, if the Goethe quote does entail a certain historical significance, and if the verdict is nevertheless to delete this article, I would encourage the creation of a page for botany (a clearly non-obscure topic) with the Goethe quote transferred there.  Best, allixpeeke (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Read in another language