Wikiquote:Votes for deletion

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search

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

Alan O. Ebenstein

Questionable notability without Wikipedia article. — Jusjih (talk) 01:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 02:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment : This political scientist and writer has authored and co-authored a series of article and books, which are cited in 250+ works (according to Google Scholar), and is used as reference in about 20 Wikipedia articles. This person seems notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. -- Mdd (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Taking this into consideration, I created the Wikipedia lemma on Alan O. Ebenstein to connect the dots. After doing so and starting to comment here, I only then noticed, that Alan Ebenstein is quoted in almost 40 lemma's here on Wikiquote as well... and this is not necessarily a good thing. It raises some concerns of its own: The thing is, that Ebenstein is writing, what in Wikipedia is called "secondary sources". And the way there is quoted from the (secondary) sources is questionable, for example in the situation like this. One would expect either a quote from Hayek on prediction, or a quote by Ebenstein on Hayek, but not a quote on how according to Ebenstein Hayek interpretes prediction. But this not the issue here. I think there is sufficient reason for a Wikiquote lemma on Alan O. Ebenstein. -- Mdd (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, this is not necessarily a good thing. Writing biographies, surveys, and summaries of prominent and quotable thinkers does not necessarily make one a prominent and quotable thinker. This is just textbook material. Such texts are certainly valuable resources for students and scholars, who may be expected to cite them, but this is not what I would expect to find in a compendium of notable quotations.

        (I myself have added a few quotations from textbooks – texts written by seminal figures expressing novel ideas or perspectives, not surveys and summaries that discuss and quote them. I am frustrated that when the pertinence of whether something is a seminal work is not apparent to other contributors, attempting to point out why a textbook is seminal may be taken as mere puffery[1] or irrelevancy[2]. I think it is highly pertinent to distinguishing between the noteworthy and the mundane.)

        Is this not the issue here? The issue has been framed as one of Notability, in the sense used at Wikipedia, but Wikiquote should consider also the issue of Quotability. Remarks about remarkable people and ideas are sometimes remarkably quoteworthy themselves, but not necessarily so. These, I think, are not. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. There is a now an appropriately referenced Wikipedia article showing notability. BD2412 T 13:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, now that the notability has been established (and a WP page created). ~ UDScott (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Who quotes this stuff? ("Hayek’s idea was that...", "Hayek’s thought did not emerge in a vacuum...", "This was the basic question that Hayek sought to answer...", "Hayek thought that...", "Hayek did not always absorb...", "Hayek did not believe...", "Hayek noted the association...", "It is likely that Hayek was influenced...", "Hayek never really departed from...", "Hayek emphasized the importance...", & etc. – not random or cherry-picked, these are from the first ten quotes in the article.)

    Questions of notability notwithstanding, these pedagogical (not to say pedantic) and biographical ("During his last years, he had periods of more and less lucidity") observations do not appear to have the requisite Quotability to be included in a compendium of notable quotations. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

    • I can answer your first question. User:Y-S.Ko has added quotes by Alan O. Ebenstein in about 47 Wikiquote lemma's (see here). I have been unable to determine if there have been others beside User:Y-S.Ko. -- Mdd (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Well, obviously Wikiquote does, or we would not be discussing it. I meant to ask who else, but it was really a rhetorical question. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep · Though I doubt that there is ever likely going to be a huge demand for Alan O. Ebenstein quotes, I tend to favor inclusion and broad ranges of appeal, especially in regard to scholars on various subjects, rather than exclusions and narrow criteria of acceptance here. Such tends to be far more discouraging to interest or activities than broad inclusion does, I believe. ~ Kalki·· 00:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC) + tweak