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

Robot Chicken

This page has been tagged {{copyvio}} since January (with a couple reverts in the meanwhile). Contributors to the article have been unwilling to exercise restraint. Note that the episodes are only 11-12 minutes long, so these transcripts are not proportionate to fair use of works under copyright. — Ningauble (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 18:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as nom, without prejudice to starting from scratch after it is slashed and burned and lain fallow (but with extreme prejudice against treating things like "[mumbles rhythmatically, but incoherently]" and "[breathing]" as quotations, or treating things like "Dammit, dammit, dammit!" and "Heh heh...douche" as quoteworthy). ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep — though the page has excessive quotes of low quality I do NOT agree with the strategy of deleting extensively worked upon pages because many of the casual visitors who have worked upon them have not all adhered to such expectations or standards as we might desire. Though it might exceed the numerical guidelines preferred by some, which I believe should be ONLY guidelines and NOT mandates, I doubt that it is so excessive even in what has been its poor and unpolished state to be anything approaching an infringement of copyright. I cannot claim I would be very willing to work on it, but as in such cases of the past, I would prefer to do so rather than consenting to DELETE the extensive works of others out of laziness or lazy-mindedness in attending to the growth and maintenance of this wiki, and providing opportunities of anyone interested in quotes of any subject to contribute. ~ Kalki·· 17:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and comments by Ningauble. I would rather start again with such a page (preserving the history of what has been done as a starting point - if there are users that wish to undertake this, the quotes can be moved to the show's talk page, as was done with the many proverbs pages) with an appropriate set of memorable quotes that are also of a more reasonable number. And to address comments shown above, blaming a desire to start from scratch or the lack of attention such a page has received purely on laziness is unfair and frankly, strikes me as a lazy label to affix to this issue. There are only so many hours in the day that users can devote to this site, and I for one already have a lengthy list of work to perform here. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I am now tagging the page "inuse" — I will also attend with some resigned ANGER to this task because of what I find to be NAUSEATING indifference and efforts to EXCLUDE and DESTROY the work of others, rather than permit it be eventually improved upon by people actually highly INTERESTED in the subject — which I am NOT. I confess that I am VERY inclined to assess such behavior as mentally and morally lazy, insipidly and stupidly destructive, and generally discouraging to involvement of those who have often been provided examples of HOW extensively demanding A FEW have typically been, AGAINST the general acceptance of some who would prefer to WORK and PRODUCE significant material rather than spending and WASTING much time judging and condemning and eliminating the work of others. I am NOW posting a work tag on the presently damnable thing, and though I have MANY other things I would MUCH prefer to attend to, and some which I MUST, I expect I can have this sufficiently improved within the next day, without any need for immediate deletion, and destruction of the previous efforts of others, upon which I am working, to the extent I have the time and opportunity.
I hope that others have the mental and moral strength to pardon occasional honest shows of irritation at what I genuinely am inclined to perceive as the mental or moral laziness or disregard of others for principles of tolerance which permit growth of awareness and appreciation of MANY diverse forms of thought, with MINIMAL intervention of those with more important or urgent things to do than curry to every asinine complaint about the state of others work — the deficiencies or flaws of which are actually necessary for the growth of capacities for genuine harmony, and effective opposition to mere monolithic monotony and then have the gall to be highly offended at criticisms of their own actions or attitudes. I am quite OPEN to criticisms about myself or those I give any support to and contentions about best means of progress, but am quite prone to object vigorously to absolutist exclusions and destructions of EXTENSIVE efforts, no matter how poor, if they are clearly within the scope of legal requirements and project aims, and thus redeemable with a little bit of effort, such as I have expended numerous times over the years on pages others would simply DELETE. I hope that some might actually have sense enough to eventually see that I am attending to more vitally important needs even in such apparently rambling or "random" assertions as I make for various reasons, in statements such as these, but like many other things, I know many things which can be helpful in great or little ways often take a bit more time and effort than many are inclined to make — OR even permit others to make. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 19:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:InfoboxCast

Note: this nomination includes the auxiliary Template:R, used only in this template.

This template is not useful here because Wikiquote is not an encyclopedia. (Cf. Votes for deletion/Template:Infobox and its second nomination.) — Ningauble (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 18:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as nom. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Fausto Cercignani

Quotations in this article are from an unreliable source:  these are just somebody's self-published collections of unsourced attributions. Note also citations to these vanity press ebooks wallpapered on numerous theme pages, which should also be removed. — Ningauble (talk) 16:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 17:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as nom, without prejudice to creation of a reliably sourced article on the noted philologist and sometime poet. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep · Following links and citations which were at the Wikipedia article, I have now sourced the material which had been from secondary sources without citation, to "self translation" exercises of Cercignani posted at the the University of Milan, with a link to that online source on the page. ~ Kalki·· 18:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, now that Kalki has made improvements. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, now that Kalki has given us good reasons to do so. ~ Bernardbonvin (talk) 07:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Thanks to Kalki for identifying what appears to be the primary source. I still have a couple issues with this:
    1. The present article reproduces half of the "Adagio" and the entire (100%) collection of "Quotes", far in excess of what is contemplated at Wikiquote:Limits on quotations.
    2. The source is a personal userpage hosted on an academic website. It is customary for academic institutions to host personal pages for their faculty, but most are hardly more notable than their student's FaceBook pages. I see no indication that the good professor's "Examples" page is notable enough to be included in the author page, much less to be scattered in some ninety (90) theme pages. (Past experience with this type of source being wallpapered on theme articles has been problematic.[1])
Even though Kalki's research moots criticism of the previously cited source, I am not inclined to change my vote to delete the page because Wikiquote is not a mirror for user pages from other websites. I am also still inclined to strip the wallpaper from theme articles, unless any of the professor's aphorizations are shown to be independently quoted in noteworthy sources. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)