Wikiquote:Deletion review

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikiquote-logo.svg This page has been identified by WikiProject Policy Revision as a policy requiring revision.
A proposed revision is being drafted at Wikiquote:Deletion review/Draft.

While this policy may be in force at the present time as written, it is currently
undergoing a community effort to bring it more fully into line with the needs of Wikiquote.
Please see Wikiquote:WikiProject Policy Revision for further information on the ongoing effort to revise Wikiquote policy.

Wikiquote editors may find articles, images, or other pages that they believe should be deleted, and raise these concerns in various deletion forums. Administrators determine consensus and examine policy to decide whether there is sufficient justification for their deletion from Wikiquote.

Wikiquote:Deletion review considers disputed decisions made in Wikiquote:Votes for deletion (and sometimes speedy deletions). This includes appeals to restore pages that have been deleted, as well as to delete pages that were not deleted, after a prior discussion. Before using the Review, please read Wikiquote:Deletion policy and Wikiquote:Undeletion policy.

If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so. It is not necessary to have the original stub undeleted. If, however, the new article is also deleted, you may list it here for a discussion. If you are proposing that a page be reconsidered for deletion, please place the template {{Delrev}} on that page to inform editors who may wish to join the discussion here. If the page has already been deleted, an administator will recreate the page and add {{TempUndelete}}.


  1. Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or a speedy deletion where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first - courteously invite the admin to take a second look.
  2. Deletion Review is also to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article.
  3. In the most exceptional cases, posting a message to WQ:AN may be more appropriate instead. Rapid corrective action can then be taken if the ensuing discussion makes clear it should be.

This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some information pertaining to the debate that did not receive an airing during the AfD debate (perhaps because the information was not available at that time). This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content.


Commenting in a deletion review[edit]

In the deletion review discussion, users should opt to:

  • Endorse the original closing decision; or
  • Relist on Wikiquote:Votes for deletion; or
  • Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action). For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear.

Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum.

Closing reviews[edit]

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least five days. After five days, an administrator will determine if a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikiquote:Undeletion policy. If the consensus was to relist, the article should be relisted at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.


Sumit Chowdhury[edit]

Votes for deletion/Sumit Chowdhury was closed and kept as "No consensus to delete." The closer correctly observed that not many votes were cast, but I don't think this gives due consideration to weighing the strength of the arguments and the pertinent policies. Here is a recap of arguments presented in the Vote for Deletion:

  • Arguments to Delete:
  1. The quotations consist entirely of materials taken from advertisements.
  2. The book purportedly being quoted has not been published.
  3. None of this material is quoted by independent sources.
  • Arguments to Keep:
  1. The author is notable.
  2. The article has tones of quotes.
  • Suggestions for Compromise:
  1. Perhaps userfy until existence of the book is verified.

The relevant policies for arguments #1 and #2 are at WQ:NOT#Wikiquote is not a collection of advertisements and WQ:NOT#Wikiquote is not a crystal ball, respectively. Argiment #3 relates to the guideline for Wikiquote:Quotability, which involves weighing multiple considerations.

Argument #4 may be considered in light of the guideline at WQ:Q#Notability is necessary, but not sufficient, for an article on a person. Argument #5 does not pertain to any policies or guidelines I am aware of.

Please note that points #1 and #2, which relate to core policies, were not contested in the discussion. Although there is precedent for quoting advertising materials in limited circumstances with a strong demonstration of quotability (e.g. at Advertising slogans), I would like to emphasize that non-existence of the work purportedly being quoted should be an overriding consideration. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Overturn and Delete – Advertising copy should not be posted here without clear evidence of being quoted and discussed in noteworthy independent sources, and I urge the community not to create precedent for citing sources that do not exist. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn and userfy - this could have been resolved by not treating it as a binary option. BD2412 T 18:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    I have no objection if a user requests to have this in their userspace temporarily while working on developing it into a suitable article. (I am not sure the original contributor, whose sole activity has been to copy an advertisement here from another site, would be interested in doing this.) However, it should not just be archived indefinitely as a WP:STALEDRAFT if nobody is working on it. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete - although I did some initial cleanup on the page, it is clear now that the cited book has yet to be published and it is therefore equally clear that the page should be deleted until such time as the book is published - at which time it can possibly be quoted from. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete (see comment below) - I think we should keep it simple now, and later on and don't accept quotes from (not yet) published works. This work is unverifiable, and if I am not mistaken in The Netherlands not even allowed by law: You are only allowed to quote from work which is published. -- Mdd (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep : The circumstances seem to have changed, once more, and the book quoted apparently has now been published, so arguments for its deletion on that point are no longer valid. ~ Kalki·· 20:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment If there is a requirement for proof that quotes from a published work have also been published in independent sources, very many articles would get deleted.--Abramsky (talk) 12:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
    This in not about independent (secondary) sources, but about the primary source not yet being published, This lemma was created by copy/pasting 99% of the content of a webpage on a book that will be published. Now first of all, this is not fair use. Secondly, the created lemma suggest, that the text are quotes from the book. But since the book is not yet published, it is unverifiable, and I think this is also unacceptable, because all quotes should be verifiable. -- Mdd (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
    Kalki says that the book is now published.--Abramsky (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
    Ok, having waited long enough for the advertising prospectus to be fulfilled, his first book was apparently released last week and is listed at (but not (yet?) at or google books). Argument #1 remains uncontested, that the article is entirely based on advertising copy. The article is an advertisement, showing (apparently, though it has not been verified) the opening paragraph or teaser from each chapter and a promotion by his talent agent. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Action taken: After three months the article is trimmed down to apply to the limit of quotation guideline. The original source is (still) the only available online source, and limits of quotation should be related to that one published source. -- Mdd (talk) 10:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
    Regarding the one remaining quote associated with his new book in the current article revision, it has still not been verified that the quoted text actually appears in the book, as opposed to being a synopsis appearing in an advertisement. Either way, and even with quantitative limits, I do not approve of quoting advertisements like this. I certainly do not approve of including this link to a retail sales site. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep : The original article is trimmed down, and other quotes (from more reliable sources) have been found and added to the article. It has become more clear now, that this person is both notable and quotable. -- Mdd (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
    Regarding the other quotes that have been added in the current article revision, I am not seeing the quotability here. The article at InformationWeek is just a puff piece. The foreword to Doing what is right: CRISIL Story was not even written by Chowdhury: this bit of puffery is clearly attributed to Roopa Kudva, Managing Director and CEO of CRISIL.

    I frankly do not understand the impulse to "rescue" an article like this. I myself have rescued articles by finding citations for famous quotes that any general compendium of quotations ought to include (e.g. here), but nothing in this article appears to have stood the test of time as a widely repeated quotation or a notable work. It is puffery, promotion, and unremarkable management babble. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

    Thanks for your feedback. The InformationWeek-quote has been removed and the Doing what is right: CRISIL Story-quote has been replaced. As to your "famous quotes of any general compendium of quotations"- argument, Wikiquote has passed this stadium long ago. -- Mdd (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)