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.


Contents

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

Category:Wikiquote sockpuppets of BarkingFish

Let us not import Wikipedia sockpuppet investigations and results here, which has nothing to do with Wikiquote, see also Wikiquote:Administrators'_noticeboard#BarkingFish_and_sockpuppets — Mdd (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, Cirt used a ✓, so it must be true! Too long have we been deceived by these malicious zero-edit accounts, but no more! ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
The malicious sarcasm is not helpful here. -- Cirt (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Is there any reason that when you click on the tick, it displays a cat picture? -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
That depends on what you consider to be "malicious", Cirt. I for one prefer sarcasm over accusing others of sock-puppetry with no evidence whatsoever. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. I don't see the need for this unless such activity were to occur here. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete Let's not import the sort of drama that puts me off editing WP. This place is usually much more civilised.--Abramsky (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Various Userboxes

There are various userboxes on Wikiquote. I'm thinking it would be good to limit things to the language userboxes, links to other projects and a few Wikiquote related userboxes. I don't think there is a need to create ones on other topics, but if there is it could be done in userspace rather than template space. — WOSlinker (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 17:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't know why "User India" is down twice, but what is the harm if someone wants to say that they are from India?--Abramsky (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
    • That was a mistake, now down just once. No harm but does it need to be done in the template namespace, or can it just be done as a subpage of their userpages? You could end up like wikipedia though with 1000's of userboxes. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: in my opinion, we need more userboxes, not less. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep, not seeing the harm in allowing this sort of freedom of expression here. -- Cirt (talk) 03:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't want to force everyone to live a spartan life, on the other hand the history of Wikimedia projects have seen some odd users whose edits focused on their user page so that we've finally driven to block them out: this dimmed past makes me hesitate to advocate those user template vigorously. Besides my hesitation, I'd ask a simple tech question. If I understand rightly, we need no babel templates anymore because the feature is now provided by a MediaWiki Extention. Has any similar circumstance arisen recently? --Aphaia (talk) 10:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
    I do not like the "Babel box" because it includes extra self-referential links in its head and foot that I prefer not to include on my user page. (Meta has custom CSS that enables users omit the box if they do not want the clutter.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: These userboxen seem useless for the purpose of communication among participants in building the project, but I don't feel strongly about deleting this sort of clutter. I am much more bothered by user pages of people who treat this as a free webhost for self expression or self promotion without making any actual contribution to the project. (One dozen examples: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]) ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Gideon Rasmussen

Not sufficiently notable. A Wikipedia article on this person has been deleted twice. The Microsoft "Most Valuable Professional" designation is not itself a significant award indicating notability: thousands of people have received this designation from Microsoft to promote social networking in their developer community. — Ningauble (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 20:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete as nom. (The quotes themselves are ordinary and unremarkable industry advice.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete His quotes are not interesting for the vast majority of readers. --Spannerjam (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. There is no indication on Google books or Google Scholar that his work has any impact. -- Mdd (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete, per analysis by nom, above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Votes_for_deletion&oldid=1579395"