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

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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).[reply]

Nicholas Kazanas

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

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep — the nomination simply seems to be another childish trolling event. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 00:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC) + tweak[reply]
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).[reply]

Pratham Sudhir Hegde

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

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)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the purported citations are actual published, verifiable sources. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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).[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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.


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) 00:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable subject and spam. JavaHurricane (talk) 11:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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) 05:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Vaibhav Mahadeo Palhade

Vanity page without any potential to become a proper Wikiquote page. GeneralNotability (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 13:00, 2 September 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: Deleted.. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ranjan Mistry

Contested PROD for lack of notability (with the added note that a page for this person has been repeatedly deleted at WIkipedia for the same reason). — UDScott (talk) 13:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 14:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, not regular delete. Ranjan Mistry editors have been blocked and the pages deleted across numerous projects on numerous occasions. I can't say (without checking history) if he/they are globally blocked, but they have no business being part of WMF. Quakewoody (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --DannyS712 (talk) 05:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Saroj Uprety (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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 - withdrawn by nominator (non admin closure) --ო ~ #SheSaid 12:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

S. K. Malik

The secondary sources, Andrew G. Bostom and Ibn Warraq, cited in the article are not reliable nor independent, they have a strong bias. The original work can't be verified. — Rupert Loup 18:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Vote closes: 19:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Why do you state that the original work cannot be verified? It does appear to be available on Amazon or through other sources. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you gonna buy it to verify that the quotes are present there? Which other sources? For example for what I could gather the pages "xviii-xx" cited in the first quote are from the Preface made by the translator, not from Malik. Malik content start in page 1 in the chapter "Introduction". Rupert Loup 13:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
No, I do not have any interest in purchasing the book solely to satisfy you that the quotes are accurate. My point was that your statement that the original work could not be verified is not true. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It can't be verified online, that's what I was refering. Sorry for my imperfect way of expressing my self. Rupert Loup 16:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Good news everyone, after a long search and effort I made my self with a copy of the book. So I will check it out soon, the VfD can be closed. Rupert Loup 22:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: I have removed my Keep vote from this page due to (in my opinion unfounded) concerns by Rupert that it is a personal attack. I don't believe this is true, and I have also said that Rupert has made personal attacks and harassment against me, but in spirit of reconciliation I removed it. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 13:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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. Googling gets too few hits. If Wikipedia ever undeletes the article, then we will also reconsider it.--Jusjih (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Harsh Narain

No evidence of notability, it was deleted in Wikipedia for the same reason. — Rupert Loup 18:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Vote closes: 19:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

KEEP.--Vilho-Veli (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC) - Google Books isn't necessary, every printed book in any library in the world is a reliable source.--Vilho-Veli (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vilho-Veli: Can you elaborate on why it should be kept? Arguments need to be made so we achieve consensus. Rupert Loup 16:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vilho-Veli: there is a standard on WQ in what is a RS, because one of its goals is becoming one WQ:PG. WQ:VERF seems to state that a reliable source is a "reputable", "independent and unbiased source". Which is similar to that of Wikipedia W:WP:REPUTABLE. I don't know what are you trying to say about Google Books, but there are other ways to find sources, the importan is that sources are presented here, I'm willing to do my best to try to verify them. Rupert Loup 22:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Additional comments: A simple search on Google Books and other search sites shows that this author has been quoted and cited numerous times. I just note that he is also being quoted in books that are not searchable online on Google Books, such as the books by Meenakshi Jain. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 10:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reported by Ashok Kumar Pant, a software engineer, not a realiable secondary source on the issue.
Mentioned by Gilbert Pollet, don't know his occupation, probably an historian?
Reported by Qamar Hasan, psychometrician from the Aligarh Muslim University
Not quite there to prove that the author is widely reported. Which books of Meenakshi Jain? Rupert Loup 16:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
All I am saying is that was able to find enough sources using search engines, and that some sources like the one I specified is not searchable and findable with only an online search. I don't want to spend more time on something that is clear enough, but if an admin has a related question, I will respond. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You said that he is mentioned in Meenakshi Jain's books, that means that you have access to her books. If not how do you know that he is mentioned in her books in the first place? So please, tell us in which books. Rupert Loup 21:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: I have removed my Keep vote from this page due to (in my opinion unfounded) concerns by Rupert that it is a personal attack. I don't believe this is true, and I have also said that Rupert has made personal attacks and harassment against me, but in spirit of reconciliation I removed it. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 13:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note to my deleted comment that was deleted from this page: See this quote which establishes the author's importance "Harsh Narain quotes more than a hundred and thirty references in English, French, Hindi, Sanskrit, Urdu, Persian and Arabic. The most comprehensive discussion of the primary material available is probably [his] book..." quoted in the book: The Truth of Babri Mosque by Ashok Pant, 2012. The user Akhiljaxxn was edit-warring previously, made extreme personal attacks on WQ was edit-warring many times, did canvassing and forum shopping this could be part of it and only edits articles about the opposition party in India about which he deleted all quotes that are not 100 percent positive about the political party.
Article should be expanded with quotes about this works on Hindu philosophy. --ო (talk) 12:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The forum shopping and canvassing on other websites were done by somebody else, I mistakenly attributed the forum shopping and canvassing to this user, striking through, but the extreme personal attacks were done by this user. This user has made extreme personal attacks across wikiquote against the No personal attack policy. Personal attacks should never be used in Wikiquote. . --ო (talk) 12:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My keep vote was deleted by Rupert loup and can be seen in old history, see the history.

Obviously when trillions of other lesser known people exist on Wikiquote, some of them created by the nominator of this deletion discussion, its unfair that some are nominated for deletion because of their views. The problem is this: There are trillions of less notable pages here, some of them created by the nominator of this deletion discussion, and they dont get deleted. Why? Because no one cares. Usually any other lesser-known XYZ person wouldnt have the problem with getting nominated for deletion. It applies to any controversial article, on topics with strongly different opinions and where editors of different beliefs are editing, thats where the problem lies. Currently, Wikiquote doesnt have any policies about how to deal with this effectively. New policies have to be made to deal with this. I dont know whats a good solution for this.

This author is obviously notable and his works and views on ram janmabhoomi were widely discussed in the 1990s.

--ო (talk) 12:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC) @Illegitimate Barrister:, @Miszatomic:, @UDScott:, @Mdd:, this article has been here for many months, can it be closed? --ო ~ #SheSaid 10:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.


Legitimacy (political)

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 consensus to delete the article. Closing as stale after almost a year. No prejudice against renominating. GMGtalk 13:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC). The secondary sources, cited in the article are not reliable nor independent, they have a strong bias. Single quote from Nissim Mannathukkaren.[reply]

And more importantly:

Random non-notable quote from a non-notable article. No quotability. Nissim is non-notable (also has no wikipedia page).

The same quote has been pasted into many other articles like the articles Comedy and Narendra Modi (and seems to be actually an attack on the Indian Prime Minister). (see here)

Also not neutral to push an anti-India, anti-Hindu, and anti-Indian government POV without balance in a high level article about a neutral (and global and theoretical) concept like this.

While also anti-Modi or anti-Indian government quotes have their place on WQ, this is not it. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 00:00, 12 October 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: Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 05:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Vishwajeet Sangle

Created by a globally locked and enwiki CU confirmed sockpuppet of Arshifakhan61. Article is a copy and paste from the previously deleted w:en:Draft:Vishwajeet Sangle (the content is from the second version of this article, not the one which was deleted under G13). WQ:NOTENCYCLOPEDIA and I can't see how the article would be improved into a article of quotes. Deletion seems best here. — Dreamy Jazz 13:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 14:00, 15 October 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. No consensus.--Jusjih (talk) 04:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

False equivalence

Two quotes from Nissim Mannathukkaren.

Random non-notable quote from a non-notable newsblog article. No quotability.

Nissim is non-notable (also has no wikipedia page).

The same quote has been pasted into many other articles like the articles Violence, Mainstream Media, Comedy, Irrationality, Modernity and Narendra Modi (which has almost 10 quotes by Nissim).

Context of the quote is not even clear, I didn't fully understood what he is talking about, but seems to be a one-sided POV take on a socio-poltical issue that is more complex than that.

This is a high level article about a neutral concept, I don't think this is the place to paste obscure and POV quotes from a non-notable person from a random newsblog article. — დამოკიდებულება (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 12:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep - the quotes appear to be properly sourced and pertain to the page's topic. I do not see a reason to remove them. ~ UDScott (talk) 11:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: IMHO, they (and similar ones) don't meet Quotability, especially in high level articles about a global and theoretical concept like this, and they and many similar ones could be described as spamming. But I can accept this, since I am not a deletionist or someone who likes to censor other opinions. I only wish others would also respect properly sourced quotes that pertain to the page's topic and not remove them even if they go against one's own views or for whatever "reason". --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.


Political narrative

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 consensus.--Jusjih (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC). Random non-notable quotes from a non-notable newsblog article. No quotability. Suhas is non-notable.[reply]

The same quotes by Suhas has been pasted into many other articles like the articles Democracy, Social injustice, Injustice, Irrationality, Rights, Public opinion ,State,Elite, Principal–agent problem, Migrant worker and so on.

Context of the quote is not even clear, I didn't fully understood what he is talking about, but seems to be a one-sided POV take on a socio-poltical issue that is more complex than that.

This is a high level article about a theoretical concept, I don't think this is the place to paste obscure and POV quotes from a non-notable person from a random newsblog article.

Also not neutral to push an anti-Indian government POV without balance in a high level article about a neutral (and global and theoretical) concept like this. — დამოკიდებულება (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 12:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep - the quotes appear to be properly sourced and pertain to the page's topic. I do not see a reason to remove them. ~ UDScott (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: IMHO, they (and similar ones) don't meet Quotability, especially in high level articles about a global and theoretical concept like this, and they and many similar ones could be described as spamming. But I can accept this, since I am not a deletionist or someone who likes to censor other opinions. I only wish others would also respect properly sourced quotes that pertain to the page's topic and not remove them even if they go against one's own views or for whatever "reason". --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.


Cyborg

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: Delete. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC). This article was {{Prod}} because "No sourced quotes." The tag was removed without curing the defect, which brings it here. — Ningauble (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 22:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete as nom, without prejudice to creation of an article on this notable subject with actual, sourced quotes. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Saroj Uprety (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.


Mwanandeke Kindembo

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: Delete. GMGtalk 23:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Contested PROD (for lack of notability). The issue remains - and the quotes appear to be from a self-published work. — UDScott (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 17:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. More notable second-hand reference sources have been added to the article Amisiali (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Plainly not notable. Attempt to publicize a new self-published work. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I came here after reviewing the author's self-promotional draft on enwiki. Cross-wiki spam, nothing remotely approaching notability. Spicy (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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: Speedy deleted. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anjum Lucknowi

Fails Wikiquote:Notability and WQ:Quotability. — Akhiljaxxn (talk) 06:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 07:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete for lack of quotes (and lack of notability). ~ UDScott (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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. GMGtalk 13:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Nupur J. Sharma

Fails Wikiquote:Notability and WQ:Quotability — Akhiljaxxn (talk) 11:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notable author and journalist. One of her books [1] was in the top 1 position in the Amazon Best Sellers Rank It was #1 Best Seller in Kindle Store Amazon India across all categories. That fact alone makes the author highly notable. Also the author has almost half a million Twitter followers and for example among her notable interviews she interviewed the founder of this website. Also the precedent is to keep articles if they are notable despite not yet having a corresponding wikipedia articles, see the prior deletion discussions of Mekhala Krishnamurthy Neethi Padmanabhan Armin Rosencranz which all were kept after deletion discussion. Wikiquote has thousands of articles that are much less notable and this article meets notability clearly. Obviously when trillions of other lesser known people exist on Wikiquote, its unfair that investigative journalists or media critics are nominated for deletion because of their views. The problem is this: There are trillions of less notable pages here and they dont get deleted. Why? Because no one cares. But in the case of say an investigative journalist, or a media critic, then it is a problem (unless the notability cannot be denied anymore such as for Julian Assange or Snowden). Usually any other lesser-known XYZ person wouldnt have the problem with getting nominated for deletion. It applies to any controversial article, on topics with strongly different opinions and where editors of different beliefs are editing, thats where the problem lies. Currently, Wikiquote doesnt have any policies about how to deal with this effectively. New policies have to be made to deal with this. I dont know whats a good solution for this. But we do not censor, see Wikiquote is not censored and WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

The user Akhiljaxxn was edit-warring previously, made extreme personal attacks on WQ was edit-warring many times, did canvassing and forum shopping this could be part of it and only edits articles about the opposition party in India about which he deleted all quotes that are not 100 percent positive about the political party. --ო (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC) The forum shopping and canvassing on other websites were done by somebody else, I mistakenly attributed the forum shopping and canvassing to this user, striking through, but the extreme personal attacks were done by this user. This user has made extreme personal attacks across wikiquote against the No personal attack policy. Personal attacks should never be used in Wikiquote. .[reply]

--ო (talk) 12:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC) @Illegitimate Barrister:, @Miszatomic:, @UDScott:, @Mdd:, this article has been here for many months, can it be closed? --ო ~ #SheSaid 10:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per დამოკიდებულება i would like to trout the nominater for not even googling the subject to see Notablity before nominating.Ratnahastin (talk) 12:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 12:00, 7 December 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: Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 02:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Umair Ahmad

Contested PROD for lack of notability (and that it has been repeatedly deleted at Wikipedia). — UDScott (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 16:00, 3 February 2021 (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 and protected for 3 months--Jusjih (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Namita Priya

Lack of notability (previously deleted for same) — UDScott (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 16:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - especially considering that it was just deleted and re-created within the last few hours. Quakewoody (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Non notable, no independent reliable sources, repeated posting of promotional content. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ~ TheWikiholic (talk) 06:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Delete Northern Italian does not seem to be an established term, which a user also pointed out at my discussion page. I have posted all three listed proverbs here into more geographically precise places. Spannerjam (talk) 09:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


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) 03:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Akhtar Aly Kureshy

Basically a self-promotional list of quotes - these are cherry-picked sound bites from newspaper interviews and such, but none are actually quotes that the subject is in any way known for. Note that the subject is almost certainly behind the creation and update of this page - see w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Akhtaradv, almost every named user in the page history has been blocked as a sockpuppet. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 02:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete. Blatant repeated sock-puppetry. Promotional content. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ~ TheWikiholic (talk) 06:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this vote is still open, delete: Concur with the nominator and Ningauble. --Aphaia (talk) 06:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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 --DannyS712 (talk) 01:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Amirhossein Mahmoudi

Cross-wiki spam. Created by IP sock of ArmanAfifeh. Said IP is globally range blocked as such. — Dreamy Jazz (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 13:00, 1 April 2021 (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: Sorry, but speedy deleted and salted. None of these quotes are even attributed to the subject. They're from Virat Kohli. They seem to just be a collection of personally liked quotes from someone else entirely. So it's effectively an A4 no quote speedy deletion. GMGtalk 12:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

M.Zaid

Repeatedly recreated page for non-notable person. — UDScott (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 13:00, 7 April 2021 (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 for lacking sources. Please restart only when sourced.--Jusjih (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Sebastian Stan

Contested prod for lack of sourced quotes. The problem remains. — UDScott (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 19:00, 5 May 2021 (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) 04:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Manis Gupta

Contested prod for lack of proper sources and lack of notability. Both issues remain. — UDScott (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 14:00, 13 July 2021 (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. No separate article on Wikipedia.--Jusjih (talk) 04:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

LeapFrog: The Letter Factory

Lack of notability (already deleted once for this) and unmemorable quotes. — UDScott (talk) 12:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 13:00, 20 August 2021 (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.


Beano Video

Lack of notability (already deleted once for this) and unmemorable quotes. — 67.218.18.234 (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 00:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete. ~ 67.218.18.234 (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Quotability is weak, but perhaps not unusually so for a children's comic. Notability is very weak (the only source at Wikipedia is imdb), as is common for direct-to-video productions. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


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. Please show better notability before restarting the page.--Jusjih (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Shreya Sharma

First speedy candidate, but I prefer to escalate onto VfD forum. Her Wikipedia article suggests some level of notability, at least in India: she was an awarded child actress whose film career seems to end until 2016. On the other hand, ENWP says nothing on her activities as a journalist, which this ENWQ article claims. Also I personally fail to find those quotes quotable as well as her notability as an journalist. So I'd like to invite the community to review the validity of this "quote" page on our project. — Aphaia (talk) 09:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 10:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete. Goodreads and imdb are not suitable sources. No indication of the actual identity of the person, notwithstanding putative fame of similarly named people not noted for journalism. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom and Ningauble's comments. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • question: woudn't the article creator be the best person to explain some of the background? If so why is there no notice on this user's talkpage? Just wondering Ottawahitech (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.


Marvelous MMW

Fails Wikiquote:Notability and WQ:Quotability with the listed quotes. Likely a vanity page. — Aranya (talk) 01:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 02:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. With googling, there is no further clue for his or her notability. --Aphaia (talk) 02:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, has appeared on multiple wikis, cross-wiki spam. --Ferien (talk) 06:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bio article has been deleted on En.Wiki and the page creator globally blocked. Liz (talk) 03:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep still notable —This unsigned comment is by 102.23.96.11 (talk • contribs) . 1:08,1 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Anim Akhtar Ali Khan

Not notable, appears to be spam. -- Ferien (talk) 10:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 11:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Aphaia (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication of notability. The added "source" is only an advertisement, and the author page at Amazon is an embarrassment to everyone involved. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Yoshihide Suga

Contested PROD. Obviously a notable person, but none of the quotes have sources. — UDScott (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 15:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, unless properly sourced quotes are provided. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Rachit Yadav

Contested prod for lack of notability. The issue remains. — UDScott (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 19:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep.

Virat13x (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Votes_for_deletion&oldid=3039850"