Wikiquote:Votes for deletion

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Community portal
Welcome		Reference desk
Request an article		Village pump
Archives		Administrators' noticeboard
Report vandalism • Votes for deletion
Shortcut

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

Mark of shame

There seems to be no reason for this redirect pointing to Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The only links to the redirect were (until I edited them out just now) a random quote from the Baldur's Gate series that used the phrase "mark of shame", and the one quote that uses the phrase in the Pahlavi article itself. I have no idea why this redirect was even made, or wikilinks to it added to an unrelated article and to the article the redirect points to - but the redirect clearly serves no purpose, and even besides that, the Pahlavi article is not a logical or predictable destination for such a redirect. — V2Blast (talk) 04:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Unrelated redirect which still wouldn't make sense if pointed to right destination. dibbydib (T · C) Project Stub 00:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Vote closes: 01:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, dibbydib (T · C) Project Stub 00:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
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: kept - no support for deletion at this point --DannyS712 (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC).

Jack the Ripper

Very poorly written and unreferenced. Jack is most certainly notable but if we were to clean this article up, it would require a full rewrite of the entire article. — dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 04:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Vote closes: 05:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep I've done some cleanup and formatting. Should be okay as a stub for now. GMGtalk 15:08, 11 June 2020 (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: Kept. There is no consensus to delete at this point in time. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC).

Nicholas Kazanas

Fails Wikiquote:Notability and WQ:Quotability. Also deleted on Wikipedia. — Xsaorapa (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

as examples among recently created articles that are notable. The subject is author of several published books. They have been substantially discussed, for example in Journal of Indo-European Studies, Vol. 31. Or by Michael Witzel.

I have already suspected that the VfDs were part of the meatpuppet instructions Xsaorapa gave to Pratap, and now this VfD adds further confirmation. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Weak keep: these are on par with Pratap's deletion nominations, all of which were kept after votes closed. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 03:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Vote closes: 21:00, 12 June 2020 (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: Kept. There is no consensus to delete at this point in time. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC).

The Little Bear Movie

There are pages related to Phineas and Ferb, pages related to DuckTales, but no pages related to Miraculous: Tales of Ladybug & Cat Noir on this wiki at this time. Pages related to Little Bear, Justin Time or Sid the Science Kid are not allowed on this wiki. 206.54.194.6 18:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Vote closes: 19:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep: I'm not sure I understand the rationale presented in this nomination. But it does appear that this is a legitimate film and the quotes appear to be real. So I fail to see a clear reason why this page should be deleted. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete: The pages Phineas and Ferb and DuckTales (2017 TV series) already exist on this wiki, but the page Miraculous: Tales of Ladybug & Cat Noir doesn't exist on this wiki at least for now, and "The Little Bear Movie" is related to Little Bear, is a notoriously bad film, it's characters are not according to values and they even say bad words in it. So delete it very soon and this reason is very clear and concise. 206.54.194.6 18:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep — the nomination simply seems to be another childish trolling event. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 00:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC) + tweak
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, per consensus as shown below. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC).

Pratham Sudhir Hegde

Fails Wikiquote:Notability and WQ:Quotability; probably spam. — Aranya (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Vote closes: 17:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nom (and prior PROD designation for same). ~ UDScott (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. None of the purported citations are actual published, verifiable sources. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep The following sources I have published are verifiable sources. I am new to wikiquote. So please correct me if I am wrong. Moreover, its not spam and I don't know why you judged my article that way —This unsigned comment is by Polymath236 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 18 July 2020‎ (UTC).
    Hi Polymath236, and welcome. Unfortunately, those sources only seem to be websites with user-generated content. When I looked online, I was only able to find sources that are self-published or otherwise unreliable. If you know any reliable sources that would help the page remain, please add them before this discussion closes. Aranya (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
    Hi Aranya. The sources I have provided which is peoplepill and Twoset's fandom are published and verifiable sources. Peoplepill's articles get checked and verified before they are published. Two Set's fandom is somebody else's fandom. There are strong referrences there also because the article has survived there for eight months without questioning. If you go online, Google does check each of the sources before they are published there. So does many search engines. Otherwise, they wouldn't give featured snippets and knowledge panels to him. If you want citations like newspaper articles, I can give those sources by next week or so but right now, I am not licensed to use some of the links at work according to what I was told. If you have to delete my article and have no other choice, please go on because being new to journalism, its a learning experience to create the best I can. However, please don't judge it as spam ~ Polymath236 02:33, 19 July 2020‎ (UTC)
    I understand that this can be frustrating, given the work that was put in to write the page. However, Wikiquote's policy on quotability talks about how we need independent and unbiased sources to reliably attribute quotes to the subject. In other words, we need to know if Pratham Hegde actually said them. Anyone can create a page on a Fandom wiki and attribute a quote to someone, so we can't necessarily use sources like that, even if they are true. Infogalactic is an altered fork of English Wikipedia. PeoplePill is a site that scrapes content from other sources, most of which are unreliable. None of these sources help us attribute these quotes to the subject or even show why the page should be included on Wikiquote. Aranya (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, FANDOM wikis are not reliable sources. The other two references linked point to self-published sources as well. dibbydib 23:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep The article is written in the format of many other 'famous people' articles.
  • Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. Rupert Loup 14:06, 24 July 2020 (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.

Andrew Peschard

Fails Wikiquote:Quotability: they are mundane social media posts by a non-notable person (the only Google results are a handful of routine items about his death and a memorial scholarship) that do not appear to have mentioned anywhere outside his personal social media. — Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Vote closes: 07:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

— VirginiaBeach78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete per nom. jni (talk) 06:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notwithstanding the family's memorial scholarship and his high school paper's obituary, there is nothing published about him – the definition of a non-notable subject. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Votes_for_deletion&oldid=2838193"