Wikiquote:Votes for deletion
| Community portal Welcome | Reference desk Request an article | Village pump Archives | Administrators' noticeboard Report vandalism • Votes for deletion |
Votes for deletion is the process whereby 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- {{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 Template:Vfd top ("vote closed" header with the result of the vote) to the top of the article's VfD discussion page, as well as a Template:Vfd bottom at the end of the page.
- 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.
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
Exactly the same reasoning as for Rhodes piano (above) — Markjoseph125 (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Vote closes: 02:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC). Markjoseph125 (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- Delete as nominator. Grounds for deletion is quotability. Info is in the Wikipedia article. Markjoseph125 (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- The article has four quotes now. Lofi Gurl (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- It's all a work in progress, man. I wish I had something better to say. But there you go. Lofi Gurl (talk) 14:18, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- All of this information should be (in my, as always, humble opinion) spliced into the Wikipedia article. The information, while useful, is certainly not what one thinks of when quotes are the subject of conversation. Markjoseph125 (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- Delete as nominator. Grounds for deletion is quotability. Info is in the Wikipedia article. Markjoseph125 (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. WQ is not a paper encyclopedia, there is room also for smaller topics like this. --ᘙ (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
- Wikiquote is not an encyclopedia at all. It is a compendium of quotes, the nature of which is made explicit at the page Wikiquote:Quotability, and to which I've referred several times in the past few days. The problem is not the information; it's that encyclopedic information belongs in Wikipedia, not in Wikiquote. Markjoseph125 (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Keep Borderline, but I believe the quotes are reasonably pithy and eloquent, not straight reportage. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
Criterion of quotability. What is presented here is straightforward information; valuable, but not the kind of thing that is normally included in quotes. This should all be spliced into the corresponding Wikipedia article (which would greatly improve that article), and this page should be deleted. — Markjoseph125 (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Vote closes: 22:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC).Markjoseph125 (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- Delete as nominator. Markjoseph125 (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- Delete, I am inclined to agree - the quotes are more encyclopedic in nature rather than memorable, pithy quotes about the temple. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:35, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. I have added a quote which is quoted here to the article. The quote is from the Tiruvaymoli, which is a work of Tamil Hindu literature. Comprising 1102 verses, it was composed in the ninth century CE by the Hindu poet-saint Nammalvar, who is regarded as the foremost of the Alvar saints of South India. It is the most prominent work of the Nalayira Divya Prabandham, a compilation of the Alvars towards the devotion of Vishnu It is frequently referred to as the Tamilveda or the Dravidaveda. --ᘙ (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
- Keep ELApro (talk)
One unquotable "quote" on a topic unlikely to generate quotable quotes. WQ is a compendium of notable, quotable quotes, not an "evidence locker" for public display of paragraphs longwindedly and un-factchecked-ly asserting bad things about your favorite cardboard villain — HouseOfChange (talk) 13:06, 15 March 2025 (UTC) Vote closes: 14:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
Delete as nominator. Also, if others agree that this particular quote is unquotable pov-pushing, it should also be removed from War, and from United States, where as of March 8 this article's creator Peter1c has made it the top image quote. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2025 (UTC)I am withdrawing this VfD because more quotes have been added to the article. I believe the article could use much improvement but will leave that to others. IMO only the Hickel quote is an actual quotable quote and the rest are too longwinded and diffuse. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
_page_265_German_Student_Union_Campaign_against_un-German_spirit_Book_burnings_Berlin_May_1933_(archive.org_scan)_No_known_copyright.jpg)
- Do not delete and demand User:HouseOfChange repent for abusing administrator privilege to promote a censorship agenda that cannot be supported by the community.
- When professors offer public summaries of decades of research, these are very significant and quotable. I will therefore focus on the actual motivation for seeking to remove this quotation: the accusation of "POV-pushing."
- What credentials do you and I have that outrank this Columbia Professor, a major figure in the United Nations and expert on economics and international relations? Who are we to presume to adjudicate whether he should be heard or not? I learned about Professor Sachs in my graduate seminar on globalization at Penn State (ADTED508). What kind of grade would I have gotten if I refused to listen to my professors when they teach me things I don't like to hear? What if students were to remove the professor from the room when he says things they don't like? It is a travesty that you respect your own ill-informed judgment more than the entire academic community and see yourself as more of an authority than the United Nations. Who are you that you imagine your own POV is so important? Please reveal some credentials to us that would justify your arrogation of authoritarian control? HouseOfChange is trying to sabotage the pipeline of knowledge from universities to the masses because he doesn't like anyone to disagree with his ill-informed POV.
- If your modus operandi is to remove quotations from major figures because they don't correspond to your personal point of view, you are not acting in good faith as an administrator. You are misusing the term POV-pushing, designating any position that doesn't flawlessly align with your own ill-informed point of view as POV-pushing. If you don't like the POV of a quote, please feel free to add more quotes. You are abusing your administrator privilege by censoring points of view that are widely quoted, well respected in the academic community, and have great influence in the international community. I think you are making a huge mistake in pushing this censorship agenda and I really hope the community will overrule you. You know one of the first things fascists do is burn books they don't like. You are blatantly transgressing long established Wikiquote POV guidelines and attempting to create a sanitized wikiquote that will uniformly enforce your ill-informed POV and prevent both wikiquote readership and yourself from becoming better informed. You might as well go with your sledge hammer and smash up the universities as well. How does someone with an anti-learning agenda end up as an administrator in an educational institution?
- Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective.
- 'Neutral point of view' should not be confused with 'point of view espoused by an international body such as the United Nations'; writing in NPOV style requires recognising that even widely held or widely respected points of view are not necessarily all-encompassing."
- Differing viewpoints should in theory be able to coexist, without a single editor with a god complex arrogating the authority to dictate editorial policy and label all views they don't like as "POV-pushing".
- I am praying that you will repent from this self-destructive, ill-advised censorship agenda and repent for your immoral attempt to silence those who disagree with you. I see you with a sledgehammer in your hand, seeking to destroy functional adult education institutions. I understand the fascist agenda is smashing all institutions that allow adults to learn enough to oppose fascism. Part of the educational agenda of fascism is to seek to limit the variety of positions available for learners to discover, and seek to censor and control all platforms. Why? So learners will hear only from sources under uncontested fascist control and remain as blunt-headed and ill-informed as the fascists. Peter1c (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- Any actual quotable quotes on this topic could be added to Imperialism. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- Nice one line response to the wall of text. The purpose of articles like this is for wikipedia readers who click the link to wikiquote to have access to quotations that are immediately relevant to their research. This topic is of course a subset of United States Imperialism, which is in turn a subset of Imperialism. The more specialized pages have information more relevant to a more specific aspect of the research topic as compared to the less specialized pages. With pages like this, I am trying to assist the community of scholars by providing quotations from world experts in the field that summarize their research on the article topic succinctly.
- If you are concerned about the existence of a page with such a specialized topic in the first place, as ᘙ rightly says, the habit of wikiquote has been to assume that if a specialized topic can justify a page on wikipedia, this implies the topic is sufficiently notable to justify a wikiquote page. That leaves open the question of individual quotes being quotable, which seems to be the main topic of this discussion.
- I am surprised you chose to send the refugees from your latest cleanup campaign to Imperialism rather than U. S. Imperialism. Peter1c (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- You are correct, U.S. Imperialism would be a better (and more often visited) home for these quotes. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- Well that's good that we can agree on the right place to send the fugitives, but I don't agree with the premise of more mass displacements. Long-standing Wikiquote practice is to create articles on both more and less specialized subjects so we can help researchers doing both more and less specific lines of research. The established precedent is that the existence of a wikipedia article on a special topic is sufficient evidence for the notability of the topic. I know you are busy and I am sorry to flood you with walls of text, but I feel compelled to try to persuade you to cool off a little bit on the deletion mania and allow a little bit of entropy for the sake of including other human beings in the discussion!! Peter1c (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- You are correct, U.S. Imperialism would be a better (and more often visited) home for these quotes. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
Keep, though there’s room to streamline it by trimming some of the quotes. The original quote from Sachs could be trimmed to half its size.
Any discussions regarding content from other articles should be addressed on the respective talk pages rather than here. This ensures that the discourse remains focused and appropriate for each article’s context. Discussions about quotes on War, and United States, should happen on their talkpages.
Moreover, quotes should not be relocated to the article Imperialism, as regime change and imperialism, while occasionally overlapping, are not universally synonymous. The "Imperialism" article should exclusively feature general quotes that are broader in scope and not overly specific, maintaining its focus on the overarching theme rather than delving into specific topics.
When considering the inclusion of topics, it’s worth noting that an article’s existence on Wikipedia already indicates it has undergone rigorous evaluation to establish its notability. If a topic has proven notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article, it should similarly be deemed significant enough to justify its inclusion for wikiquote. To ensure the article meets your standards, could you provide examples of the kind of quotes you feel would enhance its value?
Also since OP says that quotes should not be un-factchecked, and about pov pushing, note also these opinions:
- "Wikiquote is maybe not the place to do extensive fact checking or debunking." This has been your purpose, but indeed it is not Wikiquote's purpose. It is not Wikiquote's mission to be a fact checker. You add quotes with the sole purpose of calling Trump a "liar" etc. through the citations. And you add "without evidence" very selectively. Rest assured that Wikiquote's readers know to "investigate the context, truthfulness etc. on their own" without your biased "hints", they are not children. Of course if we start adding "without evidence" to some quotations, soon we will have to add it to most (or even all) quotations on other pages (as people typically do not present evidence when they say something witty or memorable), otherwise it would seem we are endorsing or vouching for the truth of all the statements (political or otherwise) without that label on Wikiquote. This should give you an idea of the problem you are creating. ~ DanielTom 15:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: if we deleted every article with potential NPOV issues, there would be no political articles at all. I'm going with notability on this one. Markjoseph125 (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC) https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Votes_for_deletion/Piet_Emmer
- I don't think presenting a quote by itself is a one-sided POV. I don't think there's really any POV whatsoever in merely presenting what someone said, so long as there's consensus they actually said it. Where POV comes into that is where there is disagreement over whether someone said something, or perhaps what portion / context in which to present it. Is this really the place to INTERPRET quotes at length, or merely to archive them? WakandaQT (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- I see absolutely no conflict here. Naturally the quotes of this intellectual professor reflect his opinions. The notable people quoted on wikiquotes all have POVs and express their POVs in their words. That's the way it goes. It's ok, nothing to worry about. 20:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- There is no rule against quotes that express a point of view. If nobody actually had anything to say, there wouldn't be anything worth quoting. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC) --ᘙ (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- Peter has raised some valid concerns across various talk pages, highlighting the issue of systemic bias in the arbitrary deletion of certain categories of articles. The nomination for the deletion of the article on regime change has sparked controversy, with both sides perceiving it as an act of POV pushing—whether it's the article itself or the deletion proposal. This situation draws a parallel to the mass deletion of articles on terrorism. Labeling quotes on regime change politics or terrorism as POV pushing could be seen as insensitive to the victims of these incidents. Even with well-meaning intentions, such deletions might align with the interests of the perpetrators themselves.
- Lastly, we intimidate and threaten the Media and the News channels, especially the TIMES OF INDIA and the TIMES NOW to be extra cautious in their propaganda war. Your biased and impartial approach to the news and the noise and the politics you make of ‘Islamic Terrorism’ indicates your hostility, hatred and fear.
- From a message by the terrorist group Indian Mujahideen that was sent minutes prior to a terror attack
- Based on their statements, it seems that removing quotes from Times of India and Times Now aligns perfectly with their intentions, even though that is clearly not our intention.. --ᘙ (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Bleaaah. (Yes, that's my vote. Bleaaah). While the page formally fits the description of a good Wikiquote page (the quotes are quotes; the sources are recognized), it's yet another political topic; the information would be better off on Wikipedia, or perhaps some other Wikiquote page (I can't say I read every single syllable in the lengthy argument above, but I did see Imperialism or U.S. Imperialism mentioned as reasonable candidates for a landing page for these quotes). So, grounds for keeping could be the format; for deletion could conceivably be NPOV, as the quotes do all tend one direction politically. Markjoseph125 (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Keep, but trim - there are a few of the quotes that I would not call particularly memorable or worth keeping. But I would also comment that I do not believe there is any evidence of "abusing administrator privilege" as HoC has been accused above. Anyone may of course nominate a page for deletion, where it will be discussed. That action does not amount to any abuse in my mind. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- HouseOfChange continues to use the term "pov-pushing" to describe the motivation for his deletions and edits, despite the fact that he has been confronted by numerous editors with the fact that WQ:NPOV specifically disqualifies deletions on the basis of POV. Wikiquote does not have a specified POV. So HouseOfChange in effect is labeling whatever disagrees with his own jingoistic ill-informed point of view as POV-pushing, i.e. pushing a viewpoint different from my own. Most of the mass deletions have little or no justification, certainly not enough to explain the large masses of quotes that are deleted. The mass deletion in the United States article left a blatantly racist text as I have clearly documented. HouseOfChange gave his kudos to Ficaia for wiping out the "overrepresented minorities" with their POV-pushing. Everyone expects me to be perfectly calm as I hear them talk about cutting out overrepresented minorities, but I don't see how anyone can witness this kind of blatant, shameless silencing of every voice that disagrees with whatever POV HouseOfChange and his allies are enforcing. I keep saying, you don't win an argument by silencing one side. But this is exactly what he proposes to do. Peter1c (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- It is the pushing, not the POV, that often brings unquotable quotes to WQ. People strongly in favor of some POV--whether that POV is "institutional history is a pack of lies" or "Trump is awesome" or "guns kill children" etc. etc.-- want to pile up quotes that they consider "meaningful" or "important" (i.e. making a case for their own POV). Many such quotes, however, as they ramble on attempting to pile up details and claims as "evidence", lose any chance of being "witty, pithy, wise, eloquent, or poignant." HouseOfChange (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- HouseOfChange continues to use the term "pov-pushing" to describe the motivation for his deletions and edits, despite the fact that he has been confronted by numerous editors with the fact that WQ:NPOV specifically disqualifies deletions on the basis of POV. Wikiquote does not have a specified POV. So HouseOfChange in effect is labeling whatever disagrees with his own jingoistic ill-informed point of view as POV-pushing, i.e. pushing a viewpoint different from my own. Most of the mass deletions have little or no justification, certainly not enough to explain the large masses of quotes that are deleted. The mass deletion in the United States article left a blatantly racist text as I have clearly documented. HouseOfChange gave his kudos to Ficaia for wiping out the "overrepresented minorities" with their POV-pushing. Everyone expects me to be perfectly calm as I hear them talk about cutting out overrepresented minorities, but I don't see how anyone can witness this kind of blatant, shameless silencing of every voice that disagrees with whatever POV HouseOfChange and his allies are enforcing. I keep saying, you don't win an argument by silencing one side. But this is exactly what he proposes to do. Peter1c (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
This is Wikiquote. The information here, while fine, does not consist of quotes, but rather excerpts from technical papers. I note that at the top of the VfD page it explicitly states:"Please note that Wikiquote articles should contain quotations." The information should be put into Wikipedia, or possibly be made into a Wikibook. — Markjoseph125 (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Vote closes: 02:00, 25 March 2025 (UTC). Markjoseph125 (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Delete as nominator. Markjoseph125 (talk) 01:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Quotation: to quote. It is a little more difficult to create than to destroy. The worth of something in the public sphere should be determined by the public, not by dictation of an individual or even small groups of individuals. The more varied forms of information available, the more accessible is a public education. The value of anything is porportional to the benefits reaped. Wikiquote articles are collections of quotations made available to a diversity of personalities, not all equally appreciative of identical presentations.
- KEEP ELApro (talk) 03:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Keep per Elapro. --ᘙ (talk) 11:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Keep, but trim - I agree that much of what is on the page is not very quotable, but I believe there are some that are worth keeping. I struggle at times with highly technical or scientific pages, but in the end, I do think there is enough worth preserving here, if someone will work on the page and remove what is not. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Per the criteria on the page Wikiquote:Quotability:
- Is the quote particularly witty, pithy, wise, eloquent, or poignant?
- I specifically stated that the information is fine, and deserves a place on Wikipedia or in Wikibooks. My point is that this is Wikiquote. I'm only asking that bulk historical, scientific, and other information be kept in its proper location. Markjoseph125 (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- I haven't gone through every quote on the page, but IMHO the last quote listed is worthy of inclusion and was what had caught my eye (I could be persuaded that it is better suited to a more general science page, as its point fits for any scientific topic). ~ UDScott (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Keep but only if it is trimmed down to quotable quotes. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
Hello Everyone, please help not to delete the wikiquote cause it meets the notability requirement and the quoted sentences of the person confirmed with the given news and media statements.
- Delete per speedy deletion request; also, grounds of quotability. Markjoseph125 (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Perilously close to a vanity page. First quote is "this is how wonderful our organization is". Next two are "this is how wonderful I am". Anodyne: "Together, I am convinced that we can achieve great successes". Really? Who would ever have guessed? "I trust myself first. I do my job thoroughly". Wow. The two quotes about her are no better. Completely unnecessary. — Markjoseph125 (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Vote closes: 00:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC). Markjoseph125 (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Delete as nominator. Markjoseph125 (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Delete vanity quoting. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Delete on grounds of both notability and quotability. — Markjoseph125 (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Vote closes: 01:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC). Markjoseph125 (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Delete as nominator. Markjoseph125 (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. I have added another quote and am prepared to work on the page further if necessary. --Gilldragon (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Still not quotable. Please note what Wikiquote says about itself:
- Wikiquote:Wikiquote: "Quotations are at once mundane and sublime. Whatever the philosophical stance, country, race, or religion of their origin; whether they be serious or whimsical; whether their creators are famous or notorious, controversial or celebrated, quotations are the essence of wisdom refined to a handful of well-chosen words."
- Wikiquote:Quotability: "Is the quote particularly witty, pithy, wise, eloquent, or poignant?"
- These anodyne statements from minor politicians and clerics don't really meet the criteria.Markjoseph125 (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Markjoseph125 (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Politician states "this was a difficult decision". Completely unnecessary. Delete on grounds of quotability. Markjoseph125 (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Vote closes: 01:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC). Markjoseph125 (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Delete as nominator. Markjoseph125 (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. I have added another quote and am prepared to work on the page further if necessary. --Gilldragon (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Still not quotable. Please note what Wikiquote says about itself:
- Wikiquote:Wikiquote: "Quotations are at once mundane and sublime. Whatever the philosophical stance, country, race, or religion of their origin; whether they be serious or whimsical; whether their creators are famous or notorious, controversial or celebrated, quotations are the essence of wisdom refined to a handful of well-chosen words."
- Wikiquote:Quotability: "Is the quote particularly witty, pithy, wise, eloquent, or poignant?"
- These anodyne statements from minor politicians and clerics don't really meet the criteria.Markjoseph125 (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Still not quotable. Please note what Wikiquote says about itself:
Unnecessary. Notability; I understand we have to leave pages for Hitler and other notable/notorious anti-Semites, but this guy does not qualify. Frothing at the mouth is not the same as quotability. Close to being an attack page. Also, the page creator has been blocked on grounds of "not here to create a collection of quotes" — Markjoseph125 (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Vote closes: 01:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC).
- Delete as nominator. Markjoseph125 (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Keep An unethical person is not necessarily an insignificant person. Gilldragon (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, but he fails badly in the quotability department. Plus, previous criticism of his motives, as indicated in the nomination. Markjoseph125 (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Keep given he is Wikipedia notable, it is highly likely there are more quotes out there. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Delete on grounds of quotability. — Markjoseph125 (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Vote closes: 01:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC). Markjoseph125 (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Delete as nominator. Markjoseph125 (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Delete single statement of fact quotation. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
More self-promotion. We need fewer pages of minor athletes (and politicians, prelates, and businessmen) stating "I done good. I'm proud". In other words, quotability. — Markjoseph125 (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Vote closes: 02:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC).
- Delete as nominator. Markjoseph125 (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Not a notable person. — Ternera (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Vote closes: 16:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination; also for quotability. Markjoseph125 (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. More quotes have been added since the page was nominated. --Gilldragon (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Still the issue with quotability. See comments above under Alice Kayitesi and Wang Xiaodong. Markjoseph125 (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Delete Fails quotability. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Not a Wikiquote topic. Non-quotable quotes; just snippets of the law. Any useful information should be in the Wikipedia article. — Markjoseph125 (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Vote closes: 02:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC). Markjoseph125 (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- Delete as nominator. Markjoseph125 (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
2019 Template has no transclusions. — Zinnober9 (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Vote closes: 18:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Delete as nominator. Zinnober9 (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Markjoseph125 (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)