Wikiquote:Votes for deletion

From Wikiquote
(Redirected from WQ:VFD)
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


None of the other more notable X-Men have their own pages, and these quotes aren't memorable. An about section or quotes from the comics also seem like unlikely future additions. — CensoredScribe (talk) 05:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 06:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete; any notable quotes should be on the pages of the individual works. BD2412 T 04:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Abramsky (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per WQ:FC. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, per npm. ~ UDScott (talk) 10:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


An obscure DC comics character with a narrow number of appearance to draw quotes from, none of which seem particularly memorable and require too much context. — CensoredScribe (talk) 06:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 07:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Abramsky (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per WQ:FC. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, per npm. ~ UDScott (talk) 10:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Jamie McCrimmon

Obscure Doctor Who character. The author has not added citations or proper formatting over the last year and I think UDScott had the right idea with a redirect, considering that's what Kirk and Spock are. — CensoredScribe (talk) 06:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Navbox (second nomination)

This nomination also includes the subpage Template:Navbox/doc.

Unused and non-functional template. See discussion of a previously deleted version. — Ningauble (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 15:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, per npm. ~ UDScott (talk) 10:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Russell Anthony Gibbs

This article was {{prod}} because "Questionable notability." The tag was removed without explanation, which brings it here. — Ningauble (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 17:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important.svg   ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that the deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikiquote editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikiquote, and particularly, to this article, are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely by the closing Administrator.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, or making your opinion known here, no matter how new you may be: we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff, because this is not a vote. Please review Wikiquote:Deletion policy for more information.

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

  • Delete as nom. There is little question about it:  a self-published author using a buy-yourself-an-award marketing program is a sure sign of not having achieved any notability. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Florence Devouard

This article was {{prod}} because "This remark from an online discussion is not widely quoted." The tag was removed and a couple supporting links were added. They are (1) a brief post on Seth Finkelstein's blog, and (2) passing mention in a chat room at Wikipediocracy.

This is not a notable quote, it is obscure internet chatter. It is the epitome of wiki-omphaloskepsis that should have no place on Wikiquote. — Ningauble (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 17:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as nom. The subject of the quote, Wikipedia's "verifiability, not truth" policy, is quite notable (as evinced, e.g., when multiple mainstream publications covered the Messer-Kruse affair), but this on-wiki remark about it is not. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't believe that the topic is notable outside Wikipedia circles.--Abramsky (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Mdd (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, per npm. ~ UDScott (talk) 10:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Tamil proverbs

This article was {{prod}} because "No sourced Tamil proverbs." The tag was removed with a plea for more time[1] and a remark on the talk page about the difficulty of sourcing this material[2]. Two months have passed with thirty edits that have not provided any sources. — Ningauble (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 18:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as nom. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
    Vote stricken since a couple citations have been added and mass quantities of unsourced materials have been removed. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep it I'm currently busy with my exams at college. That's why I remained a bit inactive. I've found a book named "A classified collection of Tamil proverbs" of an English man who lists many Tamil proverbs and its translations. If I find the spare time, I'll do that definitely. K. r. --Luigi Boy (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I moved the unsourced quotes (again) back to the talk page, and try to add a least some of the basic data required here. Yet. This lemma is in need of an expert, who is able to check both original and translation. Also both need to originate from written sources, which at the moment is not the case. If there is not one expert in the world willing to take some action here, I would say delete the lemma for now. -- Mdd (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I further trimmed down the data to the data actually available in the sources, and I (also) think this is enough for a start. -- Mdd (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep in its revised form (with a couple of sourced quotes). ~ UDScott (talk) 10:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Campaign for "santorum" neologism

Whose going to look for this page title? Do any of the examples meet the notability guidelines? What other recently made up words have wikiquote pages? There isn't a page for genitalia nor the N word both of which would have far more examples of notable entries than this. CensoredScribe (talk) 01:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 23:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Two points of information: 1) The nomination appears to misconstrue the subject of the article, which is not about a word or its putative referent, it is about a smear campaign. 2) Suitability of the topic, including its notability, for encyclopedic purposes has been discussed multiple times at Wikipedia ([3][4][5][6][7]).

    I concur with the nominator's sentiment, though I would not frame it in terms of "notability", that the examples are lacking a certain je ne sais quoi essential to a compendium of quotations. This is one of several articles created by a former Wikiquote administrator covering news and information about topics of controversial or prurient interest. I am unconcerned about these interests, per se, but this sort of news and information does not exhibit any qualities of what I understand quotability to mean. Some people evidently understand it to mean quite different things. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Attentional control

Needlessly specific title that is not directly used in any quote. This works for birth control because contraception is it's own subject distinct from birth. Controlled breathing is a more commonly used term in reference to meditation but separating that from breathing merely splits articles or creates unnecessary satellite articles which just repeat quotes from another more commonly searched for page. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 19:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)