Wikiquote:Votes for deletion

From Wikiquote
(Redirected from Wikiquote:VFD)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Community portal
Welcome
Reference desk
Request an article
Village pump
Archives
Administrators' noticeboard
Report vandalismVotes for deletion


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 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

Vote closes: 00:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

As I wrote on the talk page when this was created, while the quotes presented are certainly validly sourced quotes, is there anything on the page that is memorable or quotable? I would posit that it does not meet what is set forth in Wikiquote:Quotability, especially the 5th and 6th factors (Is the quote particularly witty, pithy, wise, eloquent, or poignant? and Is the quote independently well known? Has it withstood, or is it likely to withstand, the test of time?). Having such extremely long pages that only quote from dry textbooks or medical journals is not IMHO what this project is supposed to be about. — UDScott (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 21:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't know if Wikiquote has an equivalent to the ICU at Uncyclopedia, but this is a difficult page, not a bad one, and it is in need of some major changes, not deletion. What if instead of deleting all of it, someone shortened the page down to things they might actually say to someone at a party? I feel the textbooks do a good job of explaining what it is in general so we should keep those, while the medical journals focus too much on specific genes and results from a limited number of case studies so we could lose them.
    In terms of length, it's nowhere near as bad as the page for Roe v. Wade, the scientific language is just more difficult to understand compared to the terminology used in a legal journal. If the page is deleted doesn't it suggest that there is nothing worth saying about this subject? How can that be true when it's a particularly bad form of cancer? I know some subjects are easier to have a polite conversation about than others and this really isn't one of them, if you are discussing teratomas at a dinner party than you probably aren't getting invited back.
    The criticisms of the quality of this page apply equally well to the Use of fetal tissue in vaccine development and that is definitely something a lot of people discuss because of the recent Covid-19 pandemic. It's almost as if diseases are kind of hard to talk about to a general audience while sounding intelligent but not too intelligent. I would appreciate another editor's help instead of creating yet another page on a controversial reproductive health subject almost or entirely on my own, even if it's about to be deleted. The lack of communication I have with other editors is starting to get to me and impact the quality of my contributions, I don't know who the intended audience is anymore. I had assumed the community here would have contributed much more help to the abortion pages than they actually provided, I don't know what or whom you people actually care about.
    I add Wikipedia references because I trust Wikipedia's judgment, if it is good enough for Wikipedia than I assume there is at least an introduction or a conclusion worth adding to Wikiquote. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No quotable quotes and "No potential to become a proper Wikiquote page," to cite WQ:Deletion policy. People have said quotable things on medical topics such as cancer, but a dry passage from a medical journal or textbook describing some specialized form of cancer is not "quotable." Furthermore, by collecting random items from medical journals into this article gives a false impression of providing medical advice. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article isn't doing any harm, and could be trimmed. I think there is some quotable material here. Ficaia (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for lack of quotability (one of Wikiquote's criteria). This material would be fine on a Wikipedia page; to put it here is simply a category mistake. Markjoseph125 (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Person doesn't appear notable and the quotes don't seem widely quoted. Page's creator is likely the subject themselves. Looking at the history on Feb 27, the subject's registered account edited the page and then 6 minutes later an IP user continued with similar edits. — William Graham (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 18:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Quotes of Antonino Natoli are not quotable since their speaker is not notable enough for a inclusion in the English Wikiquote, but he might be relevant enough for the Italian Wikiquote. Another argument in support of this request for deletion is it's creation by a known enwiki LTA longterm vandal or one of its socks and enwiki guidelines suggest deleting entries created by sockpuppets to take away the reward of making an entry. In this case, enwiki policies are relevant since WQ:SOCK redirects to w:en:WP:SOCK, the English Wikipedia instance of the rule. — A09 (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 14:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Quotes of Antonino Natoli are not quotable since their speaker is not notable enough for a inclusion in the English Wikiquote, but he might be relevant enough for the Italian Wikiquote. Another argument in support of this request for deletion is it's creation by a known enwiki LTA longterm vandal or one of its socks and enwiki guidelines suggest deleting entries created by sockpuppets to take away the reward of making an entry. In this case, enwiki policies are relevant since WQ:SOCK redirects to w:en:WP:SOCK, the English Wikipedia instance of the rule. — A09 (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 14:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

A hoax or self-made up area near Lake Como with quotes being redundant to other entries about the Lake Como. Furthermore, it was likely edited or created by a known enwiki long term abuse vandal. Any unique quote should be moved to its corresponding entry. — A09 (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 14:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Lack of quotability. This is just a bland, generic statement of a politician, insufficient for Wikiquote. — Markjoseph125 (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 00:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC). Markjoseph125 (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary. Completely lacks quotability. Puerile. — Markjoseph125 (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 21:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC).

A single quote from a university press release is unremarkable, and does not satisfy the requirements of Wikiquote:Quotability. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 18:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I nominate this page for deletion due to multiple reasons. They all stem out of the fact that the page was created by a notable crosswiki vandal, who is among other things known for inventing sources as well as inserting misinformation in the articles he creates. After reading the page we see that most of the quotes are actually unrelated to Bellagio specifically and might be better to move them to more appropriate pages. In case someone would actually split the content, there are no more quotes regarding Bellagio specifically, thus making it unquotable and a good candidate for deletion. — A09 (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 18:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I nominate this page for deletion due to multiple reasons, the main being quotability. Another notable argument supporting deletion is the fact that the page was created by w:en:WP:LTA/Alec Smithson, who is known for inserting misinformation and false/nonexistent sources. In this case, it is no different: first quote is actually unrelated to Colico while the other two sources, L’isola. L’enigmatica storia del Santo Graal sul Lario and La leggenda del Santo Graal e del lago di Como: quando fu portato sull'Isola Comacina are actually completely made up and should be removed. Thus after appropriately assessing all three quotes we see that the Colico is deemed unquotable at the moment. — A09 (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 18:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I am nominating this page for deletion due to multiple reasons, the main being unquotability. Even though it seems like Mt Grigna has a lot of quotes, we should consider checking the cited sources. The historicality of Codex Atlanticus is undisputed, but the second source Mi sento in un destino could not be found via any possible means. Furthermore, when checking attribution of quotes for Codex Atlanticus in the digitalised version we see that most of the quotes are made up. I could not locate a single appearance of Grigna in the digitalised text. Thus after appropriately assesing all acessible quotes, we see that no quotes are left, thus making the subject unquotable. Another argument supporting deletion besides obviously fake quotes is the fact that this page was created by w:en:WP:LTA/Alec Smithson, a known crosswiki vandal. — A09 (talk) 11:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 12:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I nominate this page for deletion due to multiple reasons, the main being quotability. After carefully assessing sources we have an abudance of references to a Codex Atlanticus, which is a primary source. However, after looking through the digitalised version of the codex I could not find any mentions of Fiumelatte. Another cited source, La caduta dei Longobardi is also completely made up and could not be found in any modern library catalogue. I believe the original creator and a longterm abuser Alec Smithson deliberately inserted misinformation in this article. I could not asses the last quote as I couldn't locate the exact source, however the only positive side is that the magazine actually exists. On the other hand I believe one quote is not notable enough for an entry in the Wikiquote and thus should be deleted. — A09 (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 14:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)