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

Eve (U.S. TV series)

This article was {{prod}} because it contains no quotes. The tag was removed without curing the defect, which brings it here. — Ningauble (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 14:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as nom. Note that the contributor is range-blocked at Wikipedia for long-term disruptive editing. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
    @Ningauble: shouldn't articles with no quotes be speedy deleted? ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
    It's not up to me, personally. You or I might think so, but attempts to make "no quotes" a criterion at WQ:CSD have not succeeded. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete unless quotes are added.  allixpeeke (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Keep—I added some quotes.  The page is still a tv-stub, but keepable.  allixpeeke (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless quotes are added. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Keep, now that some quotes have been added. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. BD2412 T 13:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Keep as improved. BD2412 T 19:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom unless quotes are added. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, per improvements to the page by Allixpeeke. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 05:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


This article was {{prod}} because "No sourced quotes." The tag was removed without curing the defect, which brings it here. — Ningauble (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 20:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as nom. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Keep, now that quotes have been added. ~ UDScott (talk) 11:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. BD2412 T 13:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Keep as improved, although I would get rid of empty headers until there's something to fill them. BD2412 T 19:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom unless sourced quotes are added. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep—I deleted all of the unsourced quotes and added two sourced quotes.  Of course, this leaves the page a tv-stub, but a stub with two sourced quotes is infinitely superior to a long page with zero sourced quotes.  allixpeeke (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, thanks to the page improvements by Allixpeeke, much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 05:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Karan Singh Grover

Non-quotable statements from interviews. Page created by obsessed fan who has been repeatedly blocked for edit-warring on the subject's Wikipedia article. — FireflySixtySeven (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 16:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • If other celebrities, who have worked in same shows as him can have a quotes page, why not him? biased much? all these are legitimate quotes from legitimate sources58.106.172.244 16:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep(1) I am of the opinion that any person who has acted on television or in film is ipso facto notable enough to be quoted on Wikiquote.  Grover has done both.  (2) Whether the page's creator is a fan of the page's subject is irrelevant.  People will always tend to be more active on pages whose topics interest them and less active on pages whose topics do not interest them.  So what?  (3) Whether the editor who created the page has been blocked in the past for edit-warring is irrelevant to the question of whether the actor being quoted is notable enough to have a page on Wikiquote.  Whether an editor edit-wars or not is relevant only to the question of whether said editor should be blocked.  Should the editor in question opt to engage in edit-warring here, then a block may very well be in order, but the page Karan Singh Grover should remain.  (4)  Whether or not the quotes are from interviews is irrelevant.  (5) While I would agree that the second quote currently on the page is definitely not quotable, and suspect the first quote is also not all-too quotable, I believe the other three quotes are quotable, especially the quote about street violence being a reflection of domestic violence.  allixpeeke (talk) 05:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I doubt that he would be notable to English-speaking audiences. He is probably notable enough in India; does that count?--Abramsky (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Counts for me.  As I see it, this being English Wikiquote means simply that quotes must be in English or translated to English, not that the scope of the project is limited to Anglocentrism.  Cheers, allixpeeke (talk) 07:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, per most logical and rational analysis by Allixpeeke (talk · contributions), above. -- Cirt (talk) 07:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. These publicity materials are lacking in Wikiquote:Quotability. Apart from one quote about "how we behave with women in our houses" (discussed below), none of these quotes would ever appear in a serious compendium of famous quotations – I find no evidence that they have ever been repeated since their original appearance in publicity venues except in fan forums, let alone stood the test of time for enduring relevance in the public mind.

    The quote about "how we behave with women in our houses" appearing in (which describes its mission as "conceiving and executing promotional campaigns targeted at the Media, Marketing & Television Trade online ... providing clients with a 360 degree media service and marketing solution.) is not original to the performer being promoted here; it is blatantly plagiarized from this interview with Trupti Panchal, coordinator of the Special Cell in the Mumbai Police Commission established by the Mumbai police and Tata Institute of Social Sciences to provide pre-litigation intervention to women facing violence. The unscrupulous promotion appeared just three days after the interview with Trupti Panchal, whose words bear no resemblance to a soap-opera pretty-boy.

    I am not sure whether the edit-warring, sock-puppeting contributor is an obsessed fan or a paid promoter, but I am sure that it was appropriate for FireflySixtySeven to call the pattern to our attention. When there is evidence that this is part of an extensive campaign, it is very helpful to give a heads-up to look beneath the surface. Beneath the surface here lies not only frivolous promotional puffery, but shameless dishonesty – none of which belongs in our compendium of famous quotations. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

    • In light of Ningauble's revelation, I created a Misattribution section and moved the domestic violence quote into it.  My thanks to Ningauble for catching this misattribution.

      Thanks to this catch, the page is now even better than before.  (Now, people who think that that quote is actually a Grover quote can come to Wikiquote and discover that it isn't, and that the real quote belongs to Trupti Panchal.)

      allixpeeke (talk) 04:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

    • Using sock-puppets as an aide in edit-warring is more serious than merely edit-warring; if is a sock-puppet, it would have been helpful for FireflySixtySeven to mention this.  After all, while a person could have edit warred in the past without realising that it was inappropriate, one cannot claim innocence on the basis of ignorance if one has engaged in an extensive campaign of disruption.  While that's not, in itself, a reason to delete the page, it is a reason to keep a very close eye on the editor in question.

      Question:  Does that link indicate that is a sock-puppet?  I see only two IP addresses on that page, neither of which match, but if the evidence is contained in one of the links on that page, I may be missing it.  Specifically, if the evidence is the checkuser link or the log link, I can't see it; instead, I get a message saying, "You do not have permission to check user's IP addresses and other information, for the following reason:  The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Checkusers."

      allixpeeke (talk) 04:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

      • I do not have certain knowledge that this IP is the same person or persons, and there is no way to tell if this activity is from a PR agency directly or from fellow travelers who follow the PR and repeat it. The salient point is that there is an ongoing long-term aggressive PR campaign affecting the Wikipedia article and related topics. I believe that pattern of behavior is the most likely explanation for why someone would show up posting this PR fluff at Wikiquote. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
    • There is an extensive history of either sockpuppets of one obsessed fan or meatpuppets of a group of obsessed fans based in (I believe) Australia (I hope that is not outing; that is what I have gathered from the SPIs) edit-warring on the subject's Wikipedia article. I see you have already found the Nkapoor21 SPI; there is a newer one for Durr-e-shehwar. I believe this is not a paid promoter, but an obsessed fan, given that they are based in Australia, and accuse everyone whose edits they are displeased with of having a personal vendetta against Grover - I think paid editors don't get quite that personal and hysterical. From the Wikipedia article, it seems like the subject has quite a sizeable female fan following. I believe that many of the IPs/SPAs/new accounts arguing at this VFD are sockpuppets/meatpuppets of the same obsessed person/group. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 10:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • paid promoter really?? all these celebrities have fans who edit their pages, why only target this page?? if grover should not have a "quotes" page neither should any of his contemporaries, and all their fans should be banned too! Why don't any of you guys target quotes pages of Karanvir Bohra or Surbhi Jyoti?? Anyway, none of the information provided here was provided with bad intention, it is all well reported in the media, no information is false, the fact one quote turned out to be misattributed that is just chance, that is telly chakkar's fault, that website is not a good source anyway I supposeMe-myself22 (talk) 10:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
    Me-myself22 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    Me-myself22 has been blocked at Wikipedia as a sockpuppet of Durr-e-shehwa.
    • It's not only TellyChakkar's fault. They don't run these pieces for free, someone directly at fault paid them to do it.

      "Well reported in the media" is a joke. In terms of running paid promotional materials as "news" TellyChakkar is no different than The Times of India, and India Today, also cited in the article. They don't run these articles and interviews for free, entertainment producers and PR agencies pay them to do it. In the US this is called "payola" and is illegal. In the EU this is called "unfair commercial practice" and is illegal. In India it is called "news", but is actually paid promotional advertisement. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, per Ningauble's arguments - nothing here seems quotable (not to mention the other nonsense surrounding this page, as detailed above). ~ UDScott (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Am not a regular editor of Wikiquote and have no knowledge of policies or notability standards that are required for an article over here. But we are facing a lot of sock-puppeting and meat-puppeting on en-wiki related to Indian TV actors. Many admins and regular editors over there are assuming this to be PR activities for promotion of these subjects and a wiki entry is the best and cheapest way to do that. Check COIN entries and archives for more. Also see this chat.
    If possible, i would also request regular editors to keep a check on other two articles Karanvir Bohra and Surbhi Jyoti. These three actor, along with our deletion subject, are main leads in the Indian Hindi-language daily soap Qubool Hai and en-wiki article of this frequently sees PR activities by socks. Dharmadhyaksha (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Quick comment - the Karanvir Bohra page was created by a different set of socks, TekkenJinKazama, who is not related to the Durr-e-shehwar socks. No comment on whether to delete or keep this page, I'm not familiar enough with the Wikiquote policies to give a viable opinion. Ravensfire (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Probably meets notability, but not quotable.-Abramsky (talk) 09:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:Libertarian films

None of these films are said to be libertarian on Wikipedia, there aren't anarchist conservative or liberal films, so why is there a libertarian films category? Libertarianism in media covers what few specifically libertarian works there are. — CensoredScribe (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 20:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: There are libertarian films and they do exist, and this category is about labelling films that have libertarian themes, or ideology. Just my two cents. Joker of Truth (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Note: Editor's first edit to Wikiquote, other than to create a User page. BD2412 T 17:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: I agree with Joker of Truth here, his argument seems to make sense, if they are any counterpoints, may change view, but for now, I'm voting Keep. Floating Earth (talk)
    • Note: Editor's first edit to Wikiquote, other than to create a User page. BD2412 T 17:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Libertarian films" is not a film genre. Period.

    Furthermore, this attempt at "labelling films that have libertarian themes" is misguided and misinformed. Anti-authoritarian themes in dystopian films may certainly be of interest from a libertarian perspective, but that does not make them libertarian films. (E.g. George Orwell, author of Nineteen Eighty-Four, was not a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination, he was a democratic socialist.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - I see no reason to keep this category and I would find it difficult to determine criteria for including any film in it. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Meaningless category.--Abramsky (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)