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).

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. (During this transition period, 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

Canadian proverbs

This is scarcely a list of Canadian proverbs. Most are British. I see that UDScott added a PROD notice but the author removed it so VfD is appropriate. — Ole.Holm 18:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 19:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom but also because nothing is sourced. ~ UDScott 18:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and UDScott. - InvisibleSun 03:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • DO NOT DELETE Nothing is sourced on ANY of the 'quotations' pages - why single out the Canadian page for deletion? the notice was unwarranted, otherwise a notice should be added for almost all other quotes; proverbs can overlap countries - you'll find significant overlap between U.S. and British proverbs -- and it is very annoying to respond to anonymous critics threatening to delete pages with essentially no justification Downes 17:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • DO NOT DELETE In the variety of possible proverbs can appear very region specific significances too. So it is a good starting point for future granularity. No sense to delete it at all. --Andreas Auwaerter 18:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Note: editor's only contribution to Wikiquote is this vote. BD2412 T 19:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • DO NOT DELETE While this entry can be much improved, it should stay here for someone to do just that. There are many unique Canadian proverbs in both English and French. There is no reason to delete this. —This unsigned comment is by Pwmartin (talk • contribs) .
    • Note: editor's only contribution to Wikiquote is this vote. BD2412 T 19:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as a hoax. "Live and learn" is a Canadian proverb? "Too many cooks will spoil the broth"? If we have pages of unsourced proverbs from other cultures, delete those as well. BD2412 T 19:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Actually, the overwhelming majority of content in Category:Proverbs is unsourced, and well larded with nonsense. ~ Ningauble 19:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep--216.36.131.161 20:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Just added a few more. Not reason to delete this.

Do Not Delete: I agree with Stephen Downes, no need to delete this. Richard.

Keep - give this page a chance to grow. Building and sourcing happen over time. Other proverb proverb pages are significantly worse. Mellen22 20:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment Clearly, some recent additions to the list such as Fill your boots and Not the crispest pickle in the jar are not proverbs in any sense I recognise. Should the list be kept, they should be removed together with proverbs that are undoubtedly British.--Ole.Holm 20:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The paper dictionary on my desk (Meriam-Webster Dictionary 1974) says, "a pithy popular saying," which those certainly seem to be. I think you are saying that a proverb should offer some advice for a course of action? That seems logical to me. Just to beat what I'm hoping is a dead horse, the American proverbs page has: "Ugliness goes all the way down to the soul", and "Whatever floats your boat, sailor" and "When the cat's away, the mice will play" none of which seem to fit into the advice category. Mellen22 20:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment The Concise Oxford Dictionary says "a short, pithy saying in general use, held to embody a general truth". I'd agree that the second American proverb fails that test but I think the others don't.--Ole.Holm 20:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment So, write a new page about what proverbs are, or should be, with funny examples from various countries. But leave the Canadian proverb page BE.
  • Keep: Why should this page be held to a significantly higher standard for sourcing than the rest of the proverbs pages? Yes, generally everything should be sourced and original research should be avoided. If we were talking about quotes attributed to a person, especially a living person, I'd be right there with you deleting the OR. But the standard for proverbs should be lower because of the nature of the content and the complete lack of harm done to any individual. That's internally consistent with how the other proverbs pages have been handled. That said, it would be good if someone could get a hold of this book of Canadian proverbs to confirm a few and add some other unique ones. I see that other proverbs pages have explanations to clarify the meaning (which can be confusing if you're from another culture; I would struggle to understand the truths in the Korean proverbs without explanation, for example). This article could use some of that additional support. WeisheitSuchen 10:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutral: I really don't know what to decide on this page.(StarWarsFanBoy 21:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC))

  • Delete. Page only consists of unsourced material. Cirt (talk) 00:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I removed all the unsourced quotes. Now the page has no sourced quotes. I also removed some of the unsigned posts to this page itself. The above first three all caps, all bolded comments, are likely socks. Cirt (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
    In doing so, you removed all alleged proverbs from the page. Why not just close the vote if you think consensus had been established? If you think not, blanking the page would appear to prejudge the outcome. ~ Ningauble 15:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


Robert W. Bly

This is basically spam.—Chaser 19:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC) I changed my mind about deletion. I still think this is spammish, but these articles indicate this guy is a lot more famous than the usual resume we get dumped into Wikipedia. Still spammish, but better to clean it up than delete it. I assume a standing delete vote will keep the VFD open.--Chaser 05:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 20:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep These are quotations from a published book that is widely available in both America and Britain[1][2]. The quotes seem reasonable.--Ole.Holm 20:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep : Nothing inappropriate at all that I can see about this page. ~ Kalki 22:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: Unwanted, spammy, pointless page, no memorial or notable quotes, poorly written and fails Manuel of Style.(StarWarsFanBoy 00:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC))
  • Keep. ~ UDScott 18:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although the quotes tend to be business world platitudes, there is nothing inherently wrong with the article. - InvisibleSun 17:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


Category:Regency films

This seems to be a much too narrow category (and in a prior vote, a similar category was deleted (see Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Category:Jerry Bruckheimer films). — UDScott 18:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 19:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 18:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not useful for our purposes. BD2412 T 20:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Jerry Bruckheimer films is just a vehicle for Jerry Bruckheimer. A better comparison to Regency Films is Category:20th Century Fox films.--Ole.Holm 21:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I would also recommend deleting that category as well - what purpose do these serve? ~ UDScott 14:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I'm missing something here. There's a whole supercategory Category:Films by studio with 16 members. (The supercategory was created by Ningauble, who moved the VfD on Jerry Bruckheimer!) Are you proposing a mass VfD of all of them? And what about films by country? In the Jerry Bruckheimer case it was argued that "Movie quotes are not attributable to production management personnel". Nor are they attributable to a country; an American film may be written by a British scriptwriter for example.--Ole.Holm 21:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I created Category:Films by studio when I was consolidating miscellaneous stuff in Category:Films, uncategorized pages, and the like. It is not necessarily an endorsement. Sometimes I put things in a category for the same reason one rakes leaves into a pile: to burn them (or haul them off for compost, as the case may be). ~ Ningauble 19:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment: While I would support the deletion of all the Category:Films by studio categories, I do think that classifying films by their country of origin is helpful. ~ UDScott 13:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I'm not proposing the deletion of country of origin. I'm saying that the argument that "Movie quotes are not attributable to production management personnel" could equally be used to support that deletion. I think that MGM musicals are sufficiently recognisable to make it worth distinguishing them from those of other studios, and that Disney films have their own unique identity.--Ole.Holm 20:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete No requirement. Pmlineditor ∞ 16:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Pointless, spam, no notable or memorial quotes, poorly written and fails manuel of style.(StarWarsFanBoy 21:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC))
Comment: This is a category, not an article.--Ole.Holm 21:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, and consider doing away with all of Category:Films by studio as well. At one time I categorized some films this way, selectively, when I thought the studio's works had a distinctive character. I later stopped when I decided that it was about as useful as Category:Literary works by publisher – just not relevant for quotations. ~ Ningauble 19:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


Derek Abbott

All quotes on the page are from primary sources (affiliated with the subject himself) and nonreliable sources. — Cirt (talk) 09:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 10:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. As nom. Cirt (talk) 09:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Firstly, the subject is a notable scientist. Secondly, the source is not Abbott's own website; it is a reputable site independent of him. Thirdly, it is quoting "an invited opinion piece to be published in the Proceedings of the IEEE", one of the world's leading technical journals.--Ole.Holm 12:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Can you please provide some sources to back up these above claims? Cirt (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Who is behind Physorg.com Status of IEE journals Wikipedia article on IEEE Can you please provide some sources to back up your claim that the site is affiliated with the subject himself?--Ole.Holm 13:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I removed it from the page already. Cirt (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
www.physorg.com's own comments about physorg.com are not really the best source for this... Cirt (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Unless they are blatant liars, they are not affiliated with the subject himself. What is the evidence that they are?--Ole.Holm 13:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I did not say they were affiliated with the subject, merely that it is not the best source to establish notable quotes. Cirt (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
"All quotes on the page are from primary sources (affiliated with the subject himself) and nonreliable sources". I leave it to other editors to assess the reliability of the sources.--Ole.Holm 13:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Right. It appears from their site that anyone can register and log in. Is there any editorial oversight? Or can anyone post to it? Cirt (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Registering gives you no right to post to it. [3]--Ole.Holm 15:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep: A notable scientist and engineer with his own long standing Wikipedia page, with clearly interesting and widely published insights on many issues. If some of the material is from a site affiliated with him, that seems reliable enough as a source for quotes by him. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 15:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: Pointless, spam, fails manuel of style, poorly written, unwanted page, does not have any notable or memorial quotes and finally it violates our Limit of Quotes and Blocking Policy.(StarWarsFanBoy 18:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC))
  • Keep. The subject, who is notable, is quoted from an interview which appeared in a notable news website. - InvisibleSun 02:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


101 Dalmatians: The Series

Nothing on this page seems particularly quotable to me; all quotes are from a single episode of the series, which also runs afoul of our copyright limitations. — BD2412 T 04:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 05:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree that the quotes are poor. Copyright isn't insuperable as we could trim it, but not worth the bother!--Ole.Holm 18:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Poorly written, spam page, has no memorial or notable quotes, fails Manuel of style, violates the blocking policy, the article does not make sense and finally pointless page.(StarWarsFanBoy 18:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC))
Retrieved from "http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Votes_for_deletion"