Wikiquote:Votes for deletion

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to 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

Inceldom

Modern slang which is not even used by magazines given the MRA and pick up artist connotations that have become attached to it; the two quotes don't specifically use the portmanteau and can be added to the existing pages for celibacy, virginity or sexuality. There's a lot of slang we could have pages for but don't, even when the word has been used in famous works of literature such as Mark Twain's use of the N word in The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. — CensoredScribe (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 19:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge with Celibacy and leave redirect.. W\|/haledad (Talk to me) 21:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • A merge and redirect sounds like a fine solution to me (although I would not include the salamander quote). BD2412 T 22:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Striking !vote per improvements by GreenMeansGo. We should now keep the resulting page. BD2412 T 18:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, if you do a search on the google explore trends feature you notice that the term "incel" has more traction than several other terms for which we have categories. including major categories such as LGBT. Incel is not the same as celibacy or virginity - it is very different; it denotes a state of deprivation and subseuquent anguish, which is not the case for celibacy nor virginity. Turnheew (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment it does come from a fascinating subculture with much written about and by them, a subculture with it's own unique terminology, like other subcultures, and it is an English word, though unlike chav it isn't in any major dictionary. My argument for why we shouldn't have this page wasn't very convincing; we do after all have a page for trigger warning, which also originates from the internet, and just because Wikiquote doesn't currently have a page for something doesn't mean that it shouldn't eventually. That said, the additional terminology that comes with this concept; Chad, Tyrone and Stacy are names, not words; although, some names become words, such as Nimrod of the bible. Differentiating between this slang and the hip hop slang scrub, may well be an eventual discussion on a Wikiquote talk page pending a page merger. Another term Wikipedia has a page for, but which has no actually meaningful parameters in its usage is gook, which could refer to a low class prostitute but is better known as U.S. military slang, which was applied in 1912 to people from Nicaragua before becoming a slur for Filipinos, Koreans, and Vietnamese people. It's also been used "to describe foreigners in general, including Italians in 1944, Indians, Lebanese and Turks in the '70s, and Arabs in 1988", with the definition of foreigner not actually specified. Another derogatory term applied to Italians is Wop, which like the N word is not something I expect to be given a page on Wikiquote. Here is a list of criminal slangsome of which has been around for a while yet failed to acquire official recognition in dictionaries acceptable as sources. I will note for any future discussions regarding this page's suitability for Wikiquote, that Wikipedia has a page for superhero, with super being another prefix, like involuntary, that can be added to create a seemingly new concept, but which in effect is a useless distinction for Wikiquote to attempt to be making, as there is no actual definition that distinguishes a superhero/superheroine from a hero/heroine, as many of the most famous heroes whether in mythology/religion or speculative fiction possess supernatural abilities. The only real distinction between the two concepts is that one is a trademark owned by two companies. I'm concerned that if this page is recognized by wikiquote than these other pages mentioned may as well; call it a slippery slope fallacy, a gateway word or lowering the bar. CensoredScribe (talk) 06:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Additional commentary a similar prefix that can be added to create potentially dozens of unnecessary new pages that would needlessly complicate finding quotations is vicarious, as in vicarious trauma or vicarious shame, which unlike involuntary celibacy are terms actually used in medical journals and news outlets, and not just used to refer to an organization that refers to themselves as such. For example: the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan refer to themselves as knights, however, just because they say they are knights doesn't mean Wikipedia would ever categorize them as being such, nor would self identifying as involuntarily celibate make it an objective categorization. If no one can objectively be categorized as involuntarily celibate than why have a page for a term that applies to no one? CensoredScribe (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure this is problematic if given the right scope. There is a big difference between w:Incel and inceldom per se. The former article on en.wiki is about the online subculture, which is a thing that uncontroversially exists, and has attracted quite a bit of media attention. What is more existentially controversial is the state of being of involuntary celibacy. That's more of a grand social conspiracy theory bordering on a type of culturally emergent eugenics, of which the online subculture are proponents. It's not clear that that actually is a thing that objectively exists, and a big part of why the article on en.wiki was repeatedly deleted when the scope was about the state of being and not about the subculture. But there seems to be plenty of quotes to work with within the scope of the subculture e.g.,:
  1. These online communities didn’t used to be so violently misogynistic and as obsessed with violence as they are now ... They essentially magnify these guys’ negative feelings and encourage them to feel hopeless. If a guy doesn’t feel like there’s much point in living, he knows that if he goes out and does something violent, he’s going to be celebrated by all these people on these message boards … I’ve been expecting more [incel attacks] for a long time. [1]
  2. [Incels] have to find a target other than themselves, meaning they don’t want to take responsibility for their actions. There’s a fatalistic mentality that can perpetuate itself in these circles. The more rejection you get, the more it feeds into this belief that you are unwanted … But there’s also a sense of entitlement. They are entitled to sex. They’re entitled to women liking them. And there’s a very limited sense of reality. [2]
  3. The word [incel] used to mean anybody of any gender who was lonely, had never had sex or who hadn't had a relationship in a long time. But we can't call it that anymore. [3]
  4. Misogyny isn’t new, and ideological misogyny isn’t new. Having a distinct movement that is primarily defined by misogyny is [fairly] novel. [4]
  5. There is a really interesting irony in the incel style of quasipolitics – they are both a response to and advocates of almost an Ayn Randian view of romance and human relationships. So they rail against the loneliness and the isolation and the individualism of modern life, but they seem to advocate it as well, in that they love the language of the strong triumphing over the weak. But they themselves are the weak.
    They’ll say how terrible it is that the left has won the culture wars and we should return to traditional hierarchies, but then they’ll use terms like "banging sluts", which doesn’t make any sense, right? Because you have to pick one. They want sexual availability and yet, at the same time, they express this disgust at promiscuity.[5]
Having said that, content directly about "intra-sexual selection" is a big ball of original research and advocacy, and isn't really appropriate. In comparison, it would seem perfectly appropriate to have quotes about racism or the KKK as cultural phenomenon which objectively exist, but it's not really appropriate to have extended out-of-context quotes from phrenologists about how the size and shape of the "mongoloid" skull may or may not make them inherently inferior in some way. That would be its own type of original research and advocacy through biased content selection.
So in summary, keep, and move to Incel, and limit the scope to secondary coverage about the subculture and omit primary sources about the real or invented state of being. GMGtalk 12:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I concur with GreenMeansGo's statement and vote to keep and move. I'd also like to thank them for the additional quotations. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Assuming that this is agreeable (it's hard to tell since it was suggested so late), I've taken the liberty of moving the page and adding the quotes per my comment above. Ping previous participants: User:Whaledad, User:BD2412, User:Turnheew. GMGtalk 12:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I think that should be acceptable, GreenMeansGo. I would like to note that, although not a valid objection to the renaming and continued existence of this page, Wikiquote notably lacks coverage of many topics of a sexual nature, including pages the genitalia and most sexual fetishes and I feel this lack of effort is deliberate. Do we really need a page to differentiate notable quotes on hentai (assuming they exist) from animation and pornography? I'm pretty sure more people have heard about hentai than inceldom. No doubt there have been notable sources that have written on the more technologically primitive fetishes, even some of the seemingly more recently invented ones like robot and or furry fetishes which tend to have very strong conceptual parallels in mythology one would argue would warrant inclusion, (the metal maidens of Hephaestus and various zoomorphic figures like satyrs and centaurs, or the Ornithes Areioi, just to use Greek and Roman mythology as an example). More pertinently than arguing over whether love poems about pan belong next to psychological studies discussing the furry fandom, the difference (if any), between lolicon, shotacon, hentai and pedophilia is sure to be a discussion waiting to happen sometime down the line if we continue adding sexuality pages to Wikiquote. I would like to know just how many people would consider adding these nonexistent sex related pages to be an actual improvement, there's pages for individual makes of guns now, so I don't see why to exclude different varieties of sex, there's an inane amount of detail in both subjects. We should probably draw the line before creating pages for all the individual mechanical parts or genes though lest it vastly outnumber the pages for books and themes. This notably is not Wikipedia so we don't have to cover absolutely every single subject that they do. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Hmm...I guess this is getting a bit off topic, but doesn't really hurt anything to do a bit of musing, and it could be helpful to organize our thoughts. I'd say there are a whole host of human sexuality related pages that could, and probably should be created. The main issue that seems to cause more problems than anything else, is that WQ currently seems to have comparatively little in the way of objective inclusion criteria for individual quotes. This leaves entirely too much discretion up to individual editors, and means that the end-state of a WQ page has more to do with who is editing it, than it does to do with the subject of the page itself. I'm not entirely sure how to fix that, but it is a problem what we will have to deal with at some point. I wonder if other language projects have come up with a solution to it that we have not yet found. GMGtalk 22:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't want to take this off topic either, but right now I think the pages for guns, black people and vagina could very well end up mostly consisting of rap lyrics given the current lack of objective inclusion criteria to provide direction, and I take issue with the fact the self elected goal keepers of the page for guns allow all kinds of questionable rap lyrics from admittedly very high charting records, yet allow no anti-gun quotations from an an equivalently well selling Batman film, comic, or cartoon, is considered notable for inclusion. I think if this is based off number of people who have heard the quote from observing the source in it's entirety than something or rather Batman related on guns is probably notable, as are platinum record rap lyrics, that or neither source is notable simply because they are popular and there are additional criteria that exclude them. I have been sticking to movie reviews and science journals because newspaper circulation is calculated as is impact factor, though notably these are for the source as a whole not the individual quotations included in them; secondary sources are not actually provided for the vast majority of the quotes of any given page. I assume the general thesis in the introduction or conclusion is the most oft quoted part, though often it is some other aside somewhere in the middle. I assumed when I added the quotes from Fahrenheit 451 without a secondary source specifically quoting it to the the page for books that secondary sources weren't required, it's been a while since that happened, I apparently have multiple people intermittently going through my edits, and I assume that page is fairly frequently visited, including by the people who most revert me, so the lack of correction if this is indeed a problem seems a bit odd, though than again given how unclear Wikiquote can be, not really that surprising. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to copy this over to the Village Pump and reply there, since that may attract increased input from others. GMGtalk 13:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Merge Outside of how easy it is to add a prefix to an existing page to get a new page, I still can't think of a particularly compelling reason for which I would vote no against having a page for this concept, given the other pages for loosely defined ideologies which may or may not have a basis in reality, however I'm also not comfortable endorsing this page as an improvement. The best I can come up with is that if Incel should really be distinct from celibacy, would that not imply Wikiquote should also have a page for racialism distinct from race and racism because there are groups that embrace racialism as a label who claim the concept is distinct from racism? Are we going to have a distinct page for racial separatism distinct from racism to dump quotes in support of Separate but equal? I think dividing pages into their most basic elements is a bad idea, there really shouldn't be distinct pages for black male children, black male adults, black female children and black female adults, nor should we be applying to people categories based off their racial casta. I really don't think we need to bother to distinguish this page from celibacy either, unlike the KKK this isn't an organization with an official representative to whom quotes can be attributed. I mean, why not have pages for cock blocked or damaged goods, those are both thematically similar and predate this concept considerably? Do we really want to cover all the same ground as Urban Dictionary? Do we have to have a page for every meme with a Wikipedia page? I've been accused of adding garbage before, but give the word and I'll create the page for All your base are belong to us, Lolcat and Leeroy Jenkins.
What exactly still needs to happen for this discussion to close? It's been over half a year already since this discussion started. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
This discussion doesn't even begin the problem of including quotes that don't specifically mention the concept in question, as well as what I think is even more problematic, the numerous quotations from speculative fiction made by characters who think no one will ever love them which heavily imply a state of celibacy in a way that doesn't specifically explain to the often younger audience what sex is. I'm pretty sure Rogue from the X-Men would meet the requirements given what happens when she touches people, before her it was Beast's thing, like the fairy tale character he shares a name with. Originally both The Thing and Tony Stark thought they had become hideous monsters from their disfiguring accidents, much less so as time went on; in the MCU it's an issue for the Hulk that is specifically mentioned in Avengers: Age of Ultron. This is more of a Marvel comics trope, but in DC, younger heroes such as Raven and Cyborg from the Teen Titans have avoided relationships for similar reasons and it is even rarely associated with Superman. There's lots of stories in fairy tales that thematically similar to this concept, notably transformation stories, it's suggested very few maidens would want to kiss a frog or a furry beast to release a curse, even when they can still talk and explain that they used to be a prince, and much like the sexist definition of inceldom being a hetero sexual male exclusive issue, it is very seldom a handsome man who must kiss a transformed princess unable to find true love's first kiss. I'm pretty sure there's a lot of melodramatic teen dramas and comedies from the 80's like Porky's, Weird Science, or Revenge of the Nerds where one of the characters state that they are never going to get laid.
I think the wide range of subjects, from mass shooters to teenage superheroes, and from historical imperial court eunuchs to science fictional asteroid penal colonists is rather extreme and due to the lack of a definition of what it is we are even talking about to begin with. I really don't think the quotation about incels being similar to fascists and terrorists was ever intended to apply to a fictional freighted teenage girl with supernatural powers that saves the world and fights hate crimes on a regular basis but thinks she will die without ever knowing love. If we are going to have this page, which we shouldn't, than we should probably include all these quotations from fiction, in all fairness, given the rather high prevalence of the trope in works of literature. Keep in mind though, this isn't TV Tropes. CensoredScribe (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
It's not totally clear what the problem is here. You favored keeping and moving above, and so the page has been moved, and refocused on the online subculture as the English Wikipedia article is. GMGtalk 20:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
What's not clear to me is when the vote for this actually ended or if it's still going on. Right now it seems like it's month six or seven of sudden death overtime for what was supposed to be a discussion lasting a month or two maybe; right now it kind of seems like the next new person to chime in breaks the tie, although Wikiquote: Votes for deletion says vote tallying isn't actually the deciding factor and suggests only a minimum of a week of discussion while providing no time estimate for the process or suggested maximum duration. This discussion could conceivably last many more years regardless of the level of participation in it, which I expect will remain minimal, as there's apparently no time limit on the voting. Even if dozens of new editors entered the discussion and voted unanimously one way or the other, I'm not sure that would actually get us any closer to this page being removed from VFD. I'm trying to think of another example of a formal voting processes that lasts an indeterminate amount of time, with an indeterminate amount of voters, but can't think of any, possibly due to how ridiculous of an idea that is. Jurys can deliberate for an indeterminate amount of time but the number of votes being tallied is set still, I'm not even sure how many administrators decide when a discussion on VFD is over.
There are no pages for democrats or republicans as individuals or philosophies distinct from those political parties. If need be we can go through the discussions regarding these two pages and see what arguments, if any, were made regarding the lack of distinction being a good idea, I imagine those two pages would be much more frequently edited than any for inceldom. I've now made every argument I'm going to make at this point, if this page and the subculture category remain I presume the addition of pages for pimp, ho, rider, punk, jock, nerd, goth, punk, redneck, emo, preppy; as well the countless racial and sexual slurs that Wikipedia has pages for but which currently lack pages on Wikiquote.
What other VFD discussions have lasted this long and how many more months/years is this discussion going to go on? It seems strange so few people have an opinion one way or another concerning this, I'd have thought more of the administrators would have expressed an opinion given the implications this has for justifying the creations of countless new pages. CensoredScribe (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
If I was trying to argue for the inclusion of this page I would say that Anonymous (group) is another internet subculture with a questionable level of organization as a group and cohesiveness as a larger concept, but with a page that seems to have been here a while now with no objection. However, I think dividing pages indefinitely is bound to be problematic which is perhaps why older quotation collections didn't do it when they could have for concepts that could be split. I do not think we need separate pages for murderers and murder victims or rapists or either rape victims or rape survivors nor any other variant terminology, just the one entry historically has sufficed. Also, what about a page for back-alley abortions, there are quotes specifically using that term from Margaret Sanger we could use and Wikipedia has a separate page, although not a page titled Safe abortions, nor are there pages for an Anti-choice movement or an Anti-life movement, even though those terms have often been thrown around. There's a quote from Donald Rumsfeld, "There are known knowns", should we not create pages for known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns in addition to knowing and unknown? CensoredScribe (talk) 03:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Umm... I don't really see how the extended hypothetical really makes any substantial difference one way or the other. If someone makes a page for any number of hypothetical topics, then if needed, we can have a VfD discussion for that subject to see if it is notable and quotable. There is no requirement that the outcome of this discussion need represent a binding precedent for future topics, nor that any previous discussion necessarily represent binding precedent for this one. GMGtalk 13:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Pick-up lines

Having a page for pick-up lines is similar to the problem presented with facing the enemy, it is unclear whether it is about the first meeting between two characters or their continued interactions, either way, the page makes as much sense as one for collecting famous jokes or one liners in action movies. — CensoredScribe (talk) 03:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 04:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I would be inclined to keep examples for which sources can be found describing them as pick-up lines. BD2412 T 04:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The unsourced quotes should be removed.--Abramsky (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2018 (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 for no consensus--Jusjih (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC).

Category: Subcultures

Overly broad category: every profession, hobby, fandom, nationality, sexuality and religion is a subculture anywhere it isn't the main culture; and culture by the way isn't a category. This category also suggests we want pages for all the other high school cliques that typically accompany nerd and that pages for fandoms should be distinct from the actual works or groups they are associated with. Wikipedia considers Juggalos to be in the musical subculture category, despite being specific to one band, is this how our subculture category should be divided? Should we have a page for Trekkie separate from Star Trek? I think Wikipedia has a lot of pages and categories that would not improve Wikiquote and this is one of them. — CensoredScribe (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 21:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep? - There is no sense in which having a category implies that we need have pages on every subject that falls into that category. I am, as far as I am aware, a member of Category:Humans and not Category:Robots. But I am neither notable nor quotable, so I don't get a page on Wikiquote. Beyond that, every minority is not necessarily meaningfully a subculture. It is not merely a numerical demographic statement; it is a group where their ideological separation from and diametric opposition to the dominate culture is somehow central to their identity. The Episcopal Church is a numerical minority in the United States, but they are not a subculture in the sociological sense that part of their core identity is embodied in running counter to the dominant culture. They are primarily a group that is a variant on, rather than an opposition to or rebellion against the dominant culture. GMGtalk 14:25, 3 December 2018 (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--Jusjih (talk) 04:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC).

Bonké Mbashe

I can't find anything to indicate this individual is either notable or quotable. Looks a lot like xwiki self-promotion. There's an attempt at an encyclopedia article on Commons at c:Bonke Mbashe that doesn't even hint at notability. There w:Draft:Antonio Bonké Mbashe on the English Wikipedia, which indicates that, among their accomplishments, that they've won the Nobel Prize. There's basically zero sources available that I can see, unless you want to talk about their Twitter account, and with all of 166 followers, it doesn't seem likely that whatever claim to notability made on-wiki there might be, that any of it is credible. Everything everywhere nominated for deletion. GMGtalk 13:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 14:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete xwiki lta. Praxidicae (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. I had previously speedy deleted a spelling variant of the same title as obviously not notable. Multiple cross-wiki versions at the time were full of unsupportable claims and completely bogus citations. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2018 (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 as withdrawn--Jusjih (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC).

Jonathan Mitchell

Subject is not notable for Wikiquote. The presence of an article on Wikipedia is irrelevant. This article can not stand by itself as the quotes (even though they pass WQ:NQUOTE) do not confer notability for the person. There are more notable people in the Autism sphere than him quoted rightly on the Autism article (eg Jim Sinclair and Temple Grandin) that do not have articles here. Likewise there are more notable controversial people in the sphere than him that I added quotes from to the Autism article (Jenny McCarthy and Robert F Kennedy Junior) that also don't have articles here. This article is in violation of the Wikipedia rule re undue weight which I assume is applicable here on Wikiquote. I have already added the three quotes to the Autism article and that is where they should be retained for balance. This article is now a double entry as a result and it should be deleted if not redirected to the Autism article as I felt was appropriate. The article was created from a biased base to try and promote Mitchell as a reliable resource on Autism above the others. That is clearly not the case. (Note that I do not claim that this is a vanity article as it isn't and I suggest that if that IP comes back and votes for that reason it should be deleted if appropriate) — TLPG (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Additional - the article creator has added more quotes which I will be adding to the Autism article. The addition makes no difference to the fact that Mitchell is not more notable than the others I named. TLPG (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Vote closes: 00:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Why would a person notable enough to have a Wikipedia article and having multiple quotes that pass WQ:NQUOTE not be notable for Wikiquote? BD2412 T 22:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Because others don't have pages on here and yet are more notable (as I said with Sinclair and Grandin - and Ne'eman also qualifies as do McCarthy and Kennedy) TLPG (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - appears to meet the criteria for inclusion to me - the lack of pages for other figures quoted on the Autism page is certainly not a reason to delete this page (if one feels strongly about it, create these pages). ~ UDScott (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    • The lack of such strength indicates exactly what I said in the deletion explanation - undue weight TLPG (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - Many sources with notable quotes. If other quotation pages for different advocates are lacking, they can be created. Ylevental (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Note - this is the article's creator and he fails to explain how the subject is more notable than the other people. TLPG (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable. Hater that needs to be exposed and this is ideal with sources. Excellent article. Keep it. —This unsigned comment is by 203.27.47.150 (talk • contribs) . Only edit from this IP.
    • Hardly a valid vote in my honest opinion! Which WQ policy does this claim come from?? Should this vote be deleted? I think it should be but that's up to an admin. @BD2412:? TLPG (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
      • We have a template for unsigned posts. In this case, it wouldn't matter if it was, as the poster is an IP, and this is their only edit. We don't delete votes, but the closing admin will likely give it no weight. BD2412 T 03:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. TLPG (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep That articles on equally notable subjects don't exist is not a valid rationale for deletion; it's a rationale for creation. GMGtalk 11:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
    • And yet it hasn't been created. Ask yourself why even though the others are arguably more notable. Therein lies the fail in your point. TLPG (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Actually, we have had an article on Robert Francis Kennedy, Jr. since 2005. BD2412 T 02:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
        • Not valid really. What about Sinclair, Grandin or Ne'eman? All well know in the Autism sphere even more so than Mitchell. TLPG (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Because no one has created them yet. The English Wikipedia has about six million articles. The English Wikiquote has about 33 thousand. GMGtalk 11:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
        • Stop ducking the point. They haven't been created. Ask yourself why? TLPG (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
          • Because there are probably several million articles for notable subjects on the English Wikipedia and Wikiquote that have not yet been created, many millions more on other language projects. If you are concerned that these articles do not yet exist, then create them. No one is stopping you. In fact, there are certainly several people willing to help you do so. These are not projects printed on paper or bound in books, and we have virtually no length restrictions. The main restriction we do have is articles that editors have been bothered to write, and we don't delete articles editors have been bothered to write on notable subjects because no one has yet been bothered to write articles on other equally notable subjects. We instead, hope and encourage other editors to write the articles we are missing. GMGtalk 00:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
            • You're still ducking the point. The articles haven't been created. Why? I'll give you the correct answer. Because they don't give enough quotes to make an article. The creator of the article in question here is biased and trying to promote Mitchell as a reliable source on Autism when he isn't. That's undue weight. You do have a restriction obviously. Why create an article when the article fails guidelines. This one does therefore so do the others and the others already don't have articles. Getting it yet? TLPG (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
              • TLPG, your assessment here is completely incorrect. GMG is correctly stating the facts, not ducking the point. You need to reign in your tendency to make accusations like this, or you will end up being blocked. BD2412 T 16:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep, nomination withdrawn-- Okay fine. Have your bias. This guy is not a notable quoter but you lot are too lax with your recognition of it. Obviously I have no choice but to create articles to counter this promotional effort by User:Ylevental, just when I do not have the time to and they aren't notable enough anyway otherwise they would have articles here already. If the articles I create are nominated for deletion my point will have been proven. Thanks for nothing. TLPG (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2019 (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.

E.M.S

English Wikipedia article was deleted unanimously in November. As was pointed out there, it's nearly impossible to look for sources given the name. Their 24 Youtube subscribers taken from Wikidata doesn't inspire terrible confidence that anything has changed. The quotes are barely sourced and, on a BLP, none of them include secondary quotations. Probably just xwiki self promotion. — GMGtalk 22:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 23:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - The deletion of the WP article definitely goes against keeping this. TLPG (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - New sources links to MTV Italian website. SommaAnie (talk) 11:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
New user with first edit outside of user space. TLPG (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Most notable people

I do not see the point of this page - and furthermore, how would one decide who belongs in the list? That seems a highly subjective process to me, thus pushing a POV. — UDScott (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 23:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ UDScott (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. We already have an index of all people with Wikiquote pages. There is no practical way to determine where the cutoff for "most notable" should be, so I think it is best that we leave it at that. BD2412 T 22:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is an old page edited by many persons. And after hard work you want to delete itǃ--Risto hot sir (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The community can decide who's very notable. There are about 20 000 sites of people, so it would be very difficult to find the really important ones.--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The site has been visited 1154 times in 90 days.--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC) - "List of most beautiful people" can't be compared to this. You can notice that the majority are definitely very notable - heads of state, prime ministers, Nobel laureates, inventors etc. While I edit I read the introduction and decide that this one is notable enough, will not waste time to add less important ones. Wikipedia also should have this kind of list.--Risto hot sir (talk) 12:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The red links show extremely notable people, like Jack Nicholson, who definetily deserve an article.--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • If you don't appreciate my categorizing skills, tell it straight, so I can concentrate in other projects.--Risto hot sir (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The index of all people gives only names; every time you have to go to the article to find out who they are/were and when they lived - it's impossible to see the essential on one site.--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It's like having 10 000 tons of stones with some gold inside; most people want it separated.--Risto hot sir (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "The minority is sometimes right, the majority is always wrong" (George Bernard Shaw). - By the way, I changed the name to Most known people on my user's page - it's more neutral.--Risto hot sir (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @Risto hot sir: I would have no objection to moving this to your user space. If it was reworked into a list of notable people missing pages, I would not object to this being made a project-space page, either. BD2412 T 16:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
      • A "project-space page" seems a good idea. There are already similar things on other Wikimedia projects.--Spinoziano (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Clearly a duplication effort of the list of articles here, and in a way an expression of opinion and not fact. Note that the article creator claims that "many" have edited it. Have a look at the history for yourselves and you'll see that it's only been two editors aside from the one who added the VfD tag. Articles do not equal categories. TLPG (talk) 03:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (opinion requested) Neutral. --Spinoziano (talk) 13:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete from article space. If a user wants to have it or similar as a subpage among their user pages, of course that is ok. A similar page, but only for as-yet non-existing person pages may be appropriate in Wikiquote: space. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete or userfy. There's nothing wrong with lists that help users navigate pages they're interested in, but a list needs some type of objective inclusion criteria. I'm not sure there is any possible inclusion criteria here other than personal preference. It's unfortunate that this received so much work and the appropriateness of the page wasn't addressed much earlier, but w:Sunk cost isn't really a valid keep rationale. We could make an indefinite number of similarly arbitrarily broad lists: List of most beautiful people, List of smartest people, List of most eloquent people, but they'd all just be different flavors of List of people by personal preference, with no real way of telling who belongs and who doesn't. GMGtalk 12:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge any useful content to List of people by name, then move to project or user space. jni (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per all of the above. Don't really see much of a purpose to this page. Too subjective to be useful. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:Disney Vault films

Category:Disney films has already been deleted per Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Category:Films by studio. Accordingly, we should not have a subcategory of the studio's films by marketing status. — Ningauble (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 20:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as nom. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I wouldn't have supported the deletion of the parent category, even if it's as a non-diffusing subcategory. I don't really see how Cat:Disney Films is any more or less useful than Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe. They both seem intuitive and meaningful. Yes, it doesn't make sense to keep a subcat when you've deleted the parent cat, but again, I wouldn't have deleted the parent cat. GMGtalk 22:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott (talk) 02:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Nelson Henderson

No English Wikipedia article, and I can see why. I can't find really any sources at all. There appears to be this one book that was written in the 80s out of which this quote become well known. That's a good reason to add this quote to Meaning of life, but I don't see that it's a good reason to have a stand alone article on this individual when by all accounts, this is the only think that will ever be there. GMGtalk 18:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 19:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

<!January 22, 2019 nominations-->

List of Presidents of the United States

Contested PROD. I do not see the purpose or value of this page, when we have a perfectly good category that handles the same function - and which can also be referred to on each individual page for the Presidents. — UDScott (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 20:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as creator. First off, this is a list that exists on 120 projects. It's objective in its inclusion criteria, limited in scope, all of its members are independently notable, and all have a stand-alone English Wikiquote articles. In other words, it meets the notability criteria established for lists by the English Wikipedia, and it's members are all quotable, as evidenced by the fact that they all have Wikiquote articles. That a list shares a scope with a category should be the case with all lists, and currently is true of all lists in Category:Lists as far as I can tell. If a list did not share a scope with a category, that would likely indicate that the list is not objective and meaningful in its scope, and should be looked at for deletion precisely because it doesn't fit into either any individual category, or the cross-section of any combination of categories (though the opposite is not true, and the existence of a category does necessitate that a list should be created). GMGtalk 20:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Just one comment: the comparison to other list pages is not truly a fair comparison. The other list pages have pages spread across many other categories, while this particular list exactly mirrors the mentioned category (Category:Presidents of the United States) - this particular list is so narrow in scope and has such a low amount of people in it that having it seems to be redundant to the category. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, WQ doesn't seem to actually have any local notability criteria for lists, and in as much as WQ relies on WP for guidance for major gaps in local policies and guidelines, the WP standards explicitly forbid duplication of categories, lists, and navigation templates as a rationale for deletion. GMGtalk 20:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Just a thought, but what if, as a compromise, we merge and redirect this list into split columns under the "See also" section of the President of the United States page. BD2412 T 20:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
That forces a choice between an incomplete list, or violating guidance at WQ:SEEALSO not to duplicate internal links that already appear in the body (besides the issue of being an exceptionally long section). GMGtalk 21:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I think we can bend WQ:SEEALSO to cover this. I would prefer that over deleting the list, and I'm not sure I can see a rationale for including such a list as a separate page in mainspace. BD2412 T 01:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Umm...I'm inclined to think we should be consistent one way or the other really. If we're expecting that the average reader is savvy enough with the software that they will easily see the category, know what it is, and click on it, then an extended see also is as useful as a stand alone list. I don't know that is likely to be true, as evidenced by the fact that the list on Wikipedia gets 22k average daily views, while the category gets 30 average daily views. Here, the list got 55 views on its first day, while the category gets an average of three. Although those numbers will become more meaningful over the coming days.
To my mind, having a companion page to a Wikipedia page with 22k average daily views is a fairly good rationale that this is useful for helping readers find and navigate Wikiquote. But if "no 1 to 1 overlap" is the principle we want to apply, I'd rather we just establish that so we can apply it consistently, and get more lasting benefit out of this discussion than whether a single page is deleted or kept, which is comparatively inconsequential. GMGtalk 11:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Why wouldn't you just add a single link under a See also section for the category itself (e.g. like we did on the Akira Kurosawa or Alfred Hitchcock pages)? ~ UDScott (talk) 12:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that is an option. And if we are to make it a standard to disallow lists with a 1-to-1 scope with a category, it would be a natural next step to add that to guidance for see also sections with eponymous categories. I'm of the opinion we should do all the things to interconnect the project with itself: more cats, more lists, more navigation templates, more see also sections. But that's just my personal opinion. GMGtalk 01:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Russ Bingham

No English Wikipedia article, and it's not clear there ever was, or currently could be. News search for this person gives exactly two sources ([6] [7]) and zero coverage either before or after. It doesn't appear the group of which he is supposed to be the leader is notable either. So I don't see why he should be. None of that is addressing the bit of a stretch it is to call him an activist, since these people are apparently some type of Canadian nationalist thing. — GMGtalk 20:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 21:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Actually, the same goes for David MacKinnon and Justin L. Smith. They appear to just be local members of this Canadian nationalist group. GMGtalk 20:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    • not "just" exactly, MacKinnon was covered by CBC as Ontario leader and formerly led the Sudbury group that Smith took over. Smith was covered in relation to soup kitchen debacle with police chief. What are minimum requirements? Does every person on Wikiquote require their own Wikipedia article? EphFan (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Yes, Wikiquote has a higher standard for inclusion than Wikipedia as it requires the subject to both be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and to also be quotable. It does not appear that these individuals meet this standard at this time, although if they continue to gain coverage in reliable source then they may at some point in the future. GMGtalk 20:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all three pages, per nom. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I would like to know, if these individuals are not considered notable independently, what about collectively if these were merged into a Soldiers of Odin page (since Wikipedia:Soldiers of Odin DOES exist) where it could collect any quotes made by its leaders (or about the group by people of significance)? This due to Wikiquote not only representing quotes on a per-person basis, but also on a per-topic basis. EphFan (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

David MacKinnon

Notable with no English Wikipedia article? — Jusjih (talk) 05:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 06:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Votes_for_deletion&oldid=2553036"