Wikiquote:Votes for deletion

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 18:33, 20 April 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)

• Vote closes: 07:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Abramsky (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Delete per WQ:FC. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Delete (change to redirect to Doctor Who).~ UDScott (talk) 10:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Deleted the template and its documentation--Jusjih (talk) 02:16, 25 May 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)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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)

Panendeism

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)

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 and the website (panendeism.org) 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 (talk • contribs) 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 panendeism.org as authoritative ref.)
    • The God Franchise: A Theory of Everything by Alan H. Dawe, (2012), p. 48, Life Magic Publishing, ISBN 0473201143

— Platonianlike (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep. Ziggythegreat (talk) 18:24 19 April 2017 (UTC)

— Ziggythegreat (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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)

Ciro Paoletti

This article was {{prod}} because "Unmemorable quote and lack of notability for its author." The tag was removed with this comment: "this is author of a standard military history text writing about the literature; memorable albeit long; the lack of enWP article more reflects the scarcity of its coverage". Memorability of the passage is not evinced by being quoted anywhere. This cursory survey of the literature of a field exhibits none of the qualities of Wikiquote:Quotability. — Ningauble (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Vote closes: 15:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. I do not doubt that it is informative and useful to note prior works in the field of the author's "standard(?) text"; however, even allowing that such background information is not always expected to be particularly witty, pithy, eloquent, or poignant in its expression, this passage does not represent a particularly wise or insightful example of original thought. It is just the sort of an annotated bibliography that is commonly included in the preface or introduction of an academic work to show that the author has done his homework. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom and further rationale by Ningauble. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Neither the author nor the quote is notable. There is not even a topic into which this quote can be merged. BD2412 T 00:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
• Keep That this is a standard text should be obvious from the title of the book itself. If anything we should lower the bar of notability of humanities authors and try to create Wikiquote pages on everyone who has written a full volume text. You previously nominated one of my creation for deletion at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/David Mumford with the same rationale. I was able to further expand it though. Same logic here, do you seriously believe that there is no memorable quote on a topic as diverse as Italian military history? I am taking the liberty to ping here some of our more active contributors to the military history project at enWP.

Keith-264 (talk · contributions), Peacemaker67 (talk · contributions), Nick-D (talk · contributions), AustralianRupert (talk · contributions), Anotherclown (talk · contributions), Mjroots (talk · contributions), Buckshot06 (talk · contributions), K.e.coffman (talk · contributions), Gaarmyvet (talk · contributions), Parsecboy (talk · contributions), GraemeLeggett (talk · contributions), TomStar81 (talk · contributions), Hawkeye7 (talk · contributions), The ed17 (talk · contributions), Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contributions), Fnlayson (talk · contributions), FoCuSandLeArN (talk · contributions), Thewolfchild (talk · contributions), Ian Rose (talk · contributions), Adam Cuerden (talk · contributions), Lineagegeek (talk · contributions), Maile66 (talk · contributions), Irondome (talk · contributions), Kierzek (talk · contributions), Necrothesp (talk · contributions), Iazyges (talk · contributions), Dank (talk · contributions), Monstrelet (talk · contributions), Kirill Lokshin (talk · contributions), Timothyjosephwood (talk · contributions), MisterBee1966 (talk · contributions), Auntieruth55 (talk · contributions), Cliftonian (talk · contributions), RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contributions), Adamdaley (talk · contributions), BilCat (talk · contributions), Trekphiler (talk · contributions), Hchc2009 (talk · contributions), Andrew Gray (talk · contributions), Alansplodge (talk · contributions), Chris troutman (talk · contributions), Cinderella157 (talk · contributions), EnigmaMcmxc (talk · contributions), TeriEmbrey (talk · contributions), UNSC Luke 1021 (talk · contributions), Manxruler (talk · contributions), Dodger67 (talk · contributions), AnnalesSchool (talk · contributions), HJ (talk · contributions), Gecko G (talk · contributions).

Solomon7968 (talk) 01:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Is there any notable work in which this passage has actually been quoted? I couldn't find one. BD2412 T 03:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. If Paoletti is notable, give him a page on Wikipedia and move the quote over there.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment, please see WP:CANVASS. If the individual is notable than as suggested by Gaarmyvet (talk · contributions) than the individual should be able to pass WP:BIO and if there are significant quotes of the individual, than this page can stand. If the individual does not have notability, than how is it that their quotes are notable, unless the quote itself has received significant coverage?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Why have I been pinged? I have no interest in, or opinion about, this matter. Dodger67 (talk) 06:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Ditto. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment No idea why I've been brought into this but am struggling to see anything noteworthy about this quote. As already said, it seems like the sort of comment on literature found in most text books. 95.148.242.188 08:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
• Delete: agree with Jim in Georgia above. Alansplodge (talk) 10:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
• Migrate per JiminGeorgia. With that, I have replied to my ping. 2600:1011:B04F:E9F8:BD66:AF42:7B4A:C2C 12:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - Per JimInGeorgia. I'm not familiar with the standard notability of WikiQuotes, but I think that if this guy is truly notable enough to have a page with one quote he would have a Wikipedia article. Since we lack an article, we can either create one or just delete this. I'm leaning towards delete. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - As far as I can tell in a few minutes of searching, this is either the only book this person has written, or the only book of any importance. If I'm missing something feel free to ping me and point it out. I don't keep an eye on my WQ watchlist. TimothyJosephWood 19:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Qur'an on peace

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

• Vote closes: 20:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• Merge to Qur'an, but should Qur'an on science and Qur'an on justice also be merged while being so small?--Jusjih (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)