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

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 ([1][2][3][4][5]).

    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)

  • Delete as above. This isn't something necessary for a project like this. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:01, 24 April 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)
  • I'm sure these quotes can find a better home within the project. BD2412 T 04:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


This is not any kind of notable philosophy. It is a recently made-up word adopted by some non-notable persons on a self-published website. See the Wikipedia deletion discussion.
What we have in this article are (A) quotes of some non-notable people that lack any Quotability, wherein they attempt to explain or defend a concept they made up that is not recognized by any reliable sources, and (B) quotes of some very notable people who are not speaking about this so-called philosophy, who assuredly never even heard of it. The former has no place in Wikiquote and the latter is flatly dishonest. — Ningauble (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 16:00, 26 April 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. It's not a thing. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. JohnSanford (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC) It is a thing, the term has been in existence for at least 22 years and is included on both the Wikipedia and Wiktionary site. Additionally the term appears in numerous notable published works[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] and the website ( is mentioned in several of them as a reference. I see no reason why there should not be a quotes page. ~ JohnSanford (talk) 10:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
JohnSanford (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep. Platonianlike (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC) The page simply seeks to cite quotes that are in-line with the philosophy of Panendeism. Just as the Pandeist page cites many people who never identified as such, i.e, John Lennon and William Wordsworth - neither of which ever identified as Pandeists during their lives, but both of which had ideas that bear remarkable similarity to Pandeism. Because the ideas of the philosophy of Panendeism are directly based on the philosophies of these scientists, I don't think it's dishonest or unfair to include their quotes on this page.
    • Panendeism is cited in the following notable works:
      • World Religions at Your Fingertips by Michael McDowell Ph.D and Nathan Robert Brown, (2009), p. 323, ALPHA, ISBN 1592578462 (cites as authoritative ref.)
      • The God Franchise: A Theory of Everything by Alan H. Dawe, (2012), p. 48, Life Magic Publishing, ISBN 0473201143
Platonianlike (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Ziggythegreat (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete, per nom and particularly the discussion at WP. ~ UDScott (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. SullivanBenjamin (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
SullivanBenjamin (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Speedy delete. There seems to be some marketing push going on over this word, on different Wikis. Those voting "keep" here are involved in that, and only that. [6], [7], [8], [9], possibly sockpuppets from their behavior. Proof is this Wiktionary exchange,[10] where one tries to change the definition and add to it a link to their website. This sparks administrative response, and the other jumps in to argue the definition right away. This also seems bad for a collection of quotes. Good ones aren't really about the topic, and ones really about the topic aren't good. Suspicious that there are quotes by "Benjamin Sullivan" (no Wikipedia article) and "SullivanBenjamin" comes to defend. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
There was some disagreement on the Wiktionary page, but the end result was that I fully embraced the definition provided. I also admit that I have not been an active contributor to Wikiquotes, although I would like to be. I'm simply passionate about Panendeism, and among thousands of other people, I do see it as a real thing and would like to see that reflected on Wikiquotes - just as other sub-categories of Deism are. However, I will certainly respect whatever the consensus is on this page. I'm also open to merging it with the Deism page since Panendeism is really nothing more than a focus within the sub-categories of Deism. However, I do want to set one thing straight - the quotes that were included in the final Wiktionary definition are ALL from for profit books that are being marketed. Mostly from fraudulent people who have made-up illustrious academic titles and from sketchy, non existent universities. This was my contention on Wiktionary, not the definition. I would challenge anyone who believes my own work in Panendeism to be "marketing" to find a single trace of for profit anything that I've done with it. I have never made single penny off of Panendeism, nor do I ever want to. All of the articles on our site are released under creative Commons, as are our ebooks, and in future, print formatted books will also be sold at the cost of manufacture without any profit whatsoever. The irony is that I am accused of marketing and marketers are the ones who are cited on Wiktionary.SullivanBenjamin (talk) 08:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Let's engage here. What was decided on Wiktionary is not relevant to whether this page is kept. Different Wikiprojects, different purposes. Now, "marketing" does not always mean for profit. Sorry if I implied that, but what's going on here is an effort to promote a new idea into a mainstream where it doesn't now exist. "I'm simply passionate about Panendeism" is no help. Merging with Deism is no help either. The quotes don't work. Breaking it down, there are 16 quotes. Ones by Copling, McDermott, and two by you are non-notable. That leaves 12. None of those mention "Deism" or seem very on point with what's unique to it. Maybe Einstein. Some could go to Mind. Some seem indistinguishable from Pantheism. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I just removed John Lennon from Pandeism, for the same reasons. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Hyperbolic, your level headed manner of addressing this has resorted my faith in an unbiased process here on Wikiquotes.
As far as this page goes, if you tell me what it would need to meet your criteria for inclusion, I will try and assist - assuming there is viable information to validate Panendeism here. If not, I trust your processes and whatever your decision is regarding this page.
As a back drop to this discussion, just to lend clarity to it (rather than credence) I spent some time as a Deist, then about a year as a Pantheist before stumbling on the philosophy of Panendeism. I consider myself an agnostic and liked the open aspect of Panendeism. There is a definite overlap between Panendeism, Pantheism, and Panentheism - there's no doubt about that. I still consider myself to be a classic Pantheist, but felt the need to differentiate after a large movement appears to have emerged which Presents the Pantheist/Pandeist God as expressly material, non-volative, and without sentience. As someone who is open to various possibilities, I was put off by that dogma and I started a small group on Facebook. Over the years, I connected with Larry Copling and more recently, Jim Garvin because I really wanted to grasp what their initial ideas and intentions were when they used that term and accurately reflect that.
Since starting that group I have have had an overwhelming number of people troll our page and attempt to force their idea of a mindless God as being the only possible conclusion and reality. As we grew, these same people that once trolled our groups decided to grant themselves prance about titles and PHDs from made up schools and then self published books that paint Panendeism as being virtually identical to Pandeism. It's been a long and frustrating journey and throughout it, my intent has always been to keep all possibilities open.
It's not that I reject the idea of a mindless Universe as invalid, or consider atheism to be invalid, but I think it's remarkably dishonest to enforce any hard set of conclusions at this phase of human evolution and science, especially through covert means in other people's philosophy and groups. I have never tried to redefine Pandeism, for example, nor have I ever attempted to sway people from their variations of Pantheism or redefine it. The only thing I have ever been adamant about is the idea that life and the universe we live in are inherently meaningful. Beyond that, Panendeism simply uses the concepts of science and deductive reasoning put forth by Deism and embraces any and all potentially valid postulates that fit the "all in God" meaning of the term. So to me, and to the people I've talked to that brought Panendeism to light, there is no solid model for God in Panendeism, it simply looks at the compatible ideas put forth by science and embraces them with a healthy dose of agnosticism.
Again, my intent and the intent of my colleagues was not to make Panendeism bigger than life, but to preserve what it was meant to be. I respect the beliefs of others and hope a for the same respect in a return, but that has not been the case. If your opinion is that these ideas would be best suited to the Pantheism page. I applaud that. In fact, I would love to see these classic kind of Pantheistic ideas there. I think it would be an affirmation that Pantheism still entertains these ideas as potentially valid. Also, I checked out the mind page you cited. I'd be honored to see these quotes there as well. I wasn't previously aware of that page, it's excellent! SullivanBenjamin (talk) 02:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Others here can better speak to this. I think to be kept you'd need quotes by very notable people directly saying "Panendeism is" something. Usually takes a while for that to come of a new idea. Hyperbolick (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Duly noted. I will do my best to find notable resources, but as you've said, it's probably unlikely given the few decades the philosophy has existed. I appreciate everyone's time and effort here and would be happy to add these resources under the Mind category, assuming the consensus is to delete this page. I'll also await any further feedback from other members as to what material can be provided (assuming such materials exist) to help substantiate this page here.
  • Moved all unrelated to their authors, some to other topics. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, Cool! I have a lot more quotes, in future I will add them accordingly. After a good deal deal of research, and with respect to Wikiquotes policy, I've decided to change my vote to delete. There simply aren't any very notable sources for Panendeism and I'm certainly not notable. If possible, given the background I've provided, I would like to propose that all entries for Panendeism be purged across all related Wiki sites. There are a number that were cited under this Wikipedia redirect discussion. I agree per nom and Wikiquotes policy, this is a recently made-up word. I also agree with the suggestion that this should also be stripped from the Wikipedia entries w:God, w:Theism, w:Personal god, w:Glossary of philosophy, w:Theopanism, w:De divisione naturae, and w:God becomes the Universe and would like to propose it be deleted from the Wiktionary entry for wikt:Panendeism as well. There is some Pandeist zealotry at work behind this. I don't know if you can blacklist the term accross wiki sites, but I'd support that too. I have literally been messaged on Facebook by these people (can screenshot if you like) with the threat that their lofty self-published books and made up publishing houses, which coincidentally sound like they have ivy league associations (i.e. The Columbia Review) represent the "most complete and scholarly works ever published on Panendeism." I guess they've taken their bogus PhDs to heart and decided that subversion is justifiable. Seriously, I would be forever in your gratitude if you would just put an end to this drama. I still plan to learn and contribute, but I'm more than happy to do so under the appropriate, well established authors and categories.SullivanBenjamin (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @SullivanBenjamin: Please assume good faith when dealing with your fellow editors. There is no "Pandeist zealotry at work behind this". The editors involved in this discussion are longstanding contributors to this and/or other Wikimedia projects, and have no ulterior motive in enforcing our clearly delineated notability guidelines. If you have evidence of off-Wiki communications specifically relating to this discussion, you can provide this here, but Wikiquote is not a forum for airing conspiracy theories or grievances against other parties, real or imagined. BD2412 T 20:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, precisely per nom. Sock/meatpuppetry closes the case. BD2412 T 04:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
    Addendum. At this point, content relating to this term has been deleted from Wikipedia, per discussion there. BD2412 T 19:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Qur'an on peace

Unnecessary page, we already have a page for Qur'an — IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Nothing memorable here - it's all either straight business news or advertising for the site. — UDScott (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 17:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. There are no quotes "by" a company, as it is not a thinking entity. No prejudice against moving the Dror Efrat quotes to a page on that person, if notability can be shown. BD2412 T 03:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Seth Farber (psychologist)

Not notable; not the Seth Farber at Wikipedia, nor anywhere in Wikipedia. A more general search does not turn up much more than self-promotional efforts. — BD2412 T 16:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 17:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep — The number one hit in the google search I did for "Seth Farber" is for THIS Seth Farber Phd. who has been a notable dissident psychiatrist since the 1980s, and not the Jewish rabbi and historian who currently DOES have an article in the Wikipedia, which is actually only the third most prominent hit, behind a page for a lawyer by that name. Overall, on the pages of google prominence, this Seth Farber is actually far more noted and notable than the historian rabbi who already has been provided with a page. I find his works recommended as notable by such widely noted individuals as Thomas Szasz, Kate Millet and Kurt Vonnegut, among others, but don’t have time to add to the page at present, as I am about to leave in a few minutes for most of the day, but expect that I shall add notable quotes by and about this person within the next few days. ~ Kalki·· 11:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
    • By "number one hit" you mean the psychologist's own website? Anyone can buy positioning for themselves on Google. What evidence is there that anyone else considers this person notable? BD2412 T 18:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Anyone with sufficient funds can certainly buy ads on Google, but their search engine results generally reflect general interest shown in the sites, and I believe that there were many more results for this author than the one for the historian, in the listings made. In some material I just added to the page, I have posted quotes about the author or his works by such notables as Daniel Berrigan, Kate Millett, Thomas Szasz, and Kurt Vonnegut. IF you had bothered to consider the fact that I stated SEVERAL of these people in my previous remarks on his work being praised by them, your questioning any evidence of his notability would not seem so obtuse. I am running late right now, on several tasks, and must be leaving now. ~ Kalki·· 23:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


The sole quote on this page for the eleven years that it has existed is a happenstance pop culture (Star Trek) reference to a fictional journal being in Manitoba, and says nothing about the province itself. We should delete this, unless and until there are quotes that are actually relevant to the subject. Absent such material, a red link would be more useful than the present page. — BD2412 T 20:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 21:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - fully agree with the nom (I think we have too much of this very issue here on the site. Too many quotes are linked to a topic or work simply because there is a tangential mention of said topic or work, without the quote really being about it). ~ UDScott (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Pre-disney EU by character

Collection of random quotes of different Star Wars characters. There appears to be no reason to have a collection with no defined criteria, when there are voices about the franchise and almost all the films and series. — Superchilum (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 22:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)