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


No real Quotability here. Just because a quote describes something as superlative, even if it is true, does not make the quotation itself superlatively quoteworthy. — Ningauble (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 18:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as nom. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think that we need to balance the quality of quotes against the notability of the subject. Hangul is a writing system used by tens of millions of people. It may not be as widely used as the Latin alphabet, but it is important enough that I'd rather we have mediocre quotes than no page at all. BD2412 T 18:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep—Agreement with BD2412allixpeeke (talk) 07:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep — Agree that this is a legitimately notable subject with sufficiently notable quotes upon it. ~ Kalki·· 05:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per BD2412's points. --Rubbish computer (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


Excessive content unrelated to Wikiquote posted repeatedly by a user who is indefinitely blocked at Wikipedia. — Ningauble (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 15:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as nom, and salt. Consider checking for sockpuppetry. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, salt as needed. BD2412 T 18:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't know what "salt" refers to, but I have to agree with Ningauble that sockpuppetry may be at play.  User:StaufferBuddy has been edited by, but not by StaufferBuddy her-/himself.  StaufferBuddy, by contrast, has edited User talk:CobyCornWall, and CobyCornWall has edited User talk:StaufferBuddy and Alaska Thunderfuck 5000, the latter of which, as we know, is problematic for its lack of citations.  (In all of this, the only useful edit appears to be redirecting ANTM to America's Next Top Model, made by StaufferBuddy on 30 August.)

    In general, I would only support deleting the content of a user page if (A) that user has been banned, (B) the page constitutes a copyright violation, or (C) the page includes death threats.  What makes this case strange is that the only editor of the StaufferBuddy user page is an IP address.  If these are not the same person, then it's quite probably that StaufferBuddy does not know about the edits to her/his profile, and would not approve of said edits.  (Note that StaufferBuddy's last Wikiquote edit was 10 September, and did not begin editing User:StaufferBuddy until 15 September.)  On the other hand, if they are the same person, then the only edits this person has made between these two accounts include (A) redirecting ANTM to America's Next Top Model (30 August), (B) editing Alaska Thunderfuck 5000 in order to remove "{{vfd-new}}" and to change the title of the "Quotes" section to "Sourced Quotes" (10 September), (C) editing User talk:CobyCornWall to write, "You Will Be Blocked From Editing The Next Time Remove A Votes for deletion Notice, Just Like You Did At Alaska Thunderfuck 5000" (10 September, nine minutes after the previous edit), and (D) various edits to User:StaufferBuddy ‎ (15–16 September).

    I suspect that a sockpuppet check will show that all three of these accounts are from the same person, in which case we can add to the list of edits made by this person the various edits made to the Alaska Thunderfuck 5000 page between 31 August and 11 September.  It would mean that this person had twice removed "{{cleanup}}", thrice removed "{{unreferenced}}", once removed "{{prod}}", and twice removed "{{vfd-new}}".  If these three accounts are all of the same person, then not only do I support deleting the user page, but I would say that this editor is simply trying to be disruptive, and would probably deserve a ban.

    allixpeeke (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

    To salt a title is to protect it from being recreated again, alluding to the ritual practice of "salting the earth". This page has already been deleted twice before[5] and was edited by all three of StaufferBuddy, CobyCornWall, and They also created other pages that have already been deleted. Both named accounts are indefinitely blocked at Wikipedia for "not being here [i.e. there] to build an encyclopedia", and they clearly are not here to build a compendium of notable quotations. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
    Ah, I did not know it had already been deleted multiple times, nor who edited it prior to its most recent creation.  That he/she/they also, as you report, created other pages that have already been deleted, this only reinforces my suspicion that these are socks of a single, disruptive editor.  In addition to my support for deleting the page, I now add my support for salting it.  allixpeeke (talk) 07:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt per above points. --Rubbish computer (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Jim Henson

This article was {{prod}} because "No sourced quotes". The tag was removed without curing the defect, which brings it here. — Ningauble (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 18:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as nom, without prejudice to creation of an article on this notable person with actual, sourced quotes. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above points unless reliable sources are found. --Rubbish computer (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:People by status

"By status" is a fairly meaningless categorization. The corresponding Wikipedia category is a grab bag of totally unrelated classifications. To quote Borges:

These ambiguities, redundances, and deficiences recall those attributed by Dr. Franz Kuhn to a certain Chinese encyclopedia entitled Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge. On those remote pages it is written that animals are divided into (a) those that belong to the Emperor, (b) embalmed ones, (c) those that are trained, (d) suckling pigs, (e) mermaids, (f) fabulous ones, (g) stray dogs, (h) those that are included in this classification, (i) those that tremble as if they were mad, (j) innumerable ones, (k) those drawn with a very fine camel's hair brush, (l) others, (m) those that have just broken a flower vase, (n) those that resemble flies from a distance.
Jorge Luis Borges, "The Analytical Language of John Wilkins", in Otras Inquisiciones (1937–1952) (1952)

~ Ningauble (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 19:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Addendum—I am indifferent as to whether or not Category:People by status is deleted, provided Category:Refugees and Category:Unidentified people have a place to go.  In that event, I abstain.  Otherwise, keepallixpeeke (talk) 23:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Second addendum—I recently created Category:Slaves and initially put it into Category:People by status.  Doing so, however, reminded me that this is up for deletion.  Subsequently, I took the initiative and moved all three categories into Category:People.  I therefore officially declare my vote to be abstain.  That said, if the consensus turns out to be "keep," I will recommend that the three categories be moved back to Category:People by statusallixpeeke (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

William Fergus Martin

This article was {{prod}} because "This writer does not appear to be sufficiently notable for a Wikiquote article." The tag was removed with the explanation "Resolved the issue by adding sources", but no indication of notability has been provided. — Ningauble (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 16:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as nom. Notwithstanding considerable promotional efforts online, neither the author nor his book nor his self-promotional "foundation" have attained any real notability, and reference to his book and websites have been expunged from Wikipedia as "self-promotional nonsense (SPA accounts)". ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep—This person's self-promotion aside, the individual has authored a book that's been published.  I regard that as notable.  allixpeeke (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ningauble's points. --Rubbish computer (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Saurabh Dudeja

Promotion of a non-notable writer. The claim that his book was a bestseller is entirely bogus. Wikipedia articles on the author and his book are slated for imminent deletion. — Ningauble (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 16:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as nom. Note that the contributor, who is indefinitely blocked at Wikipedia for promotional editing, advertised himself as an "Online Marketing, PR/Wikipedia Expert" until he took the ad down after being caught out at the Conflict of interest noticeboard. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep—Promotions aside, the individual has authored a book that's been published.  I regard that as notable.

    If it is true that Love You Forever Only In That Way was not a bestseller in India, then the false claim should definitely be removed.  That said, we must be sure first that it was not a bestseller.  Currently, Amazon claims it was a national bestseller, but I don't know how vigourously Amazon verifies such things.  allixpeeke (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

    • itself does not make this claim. Amazon only attempts to verify that "Product Description" submissions are from the actual author, publisher, or seller. I am very sure that a book which does not appear in any published bestseller list and has a total of zero (0) editorial reviews is not a "national bestseller" by any rational definition. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Anybody can claim their book is a bestseller, and even plaster it on the book cover, if they do not regard truth as an obstacle to promotion. In this case, truth does not appear to be an obstacle to also claiming in the cover that a paid press release from his high school buddies is an endorsement by International Business Times. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ningauble's points. --Rubbish computer (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Also note that this is wide spread publicity stunt across many wikis. His book articles and bio article on are also up for deletion. Dharmadhyaksha (talk) 08:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)