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: Deleted while flagged for copyright check--Jusjih (talk) 04:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]

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]

Delete – Ilovemydoodle (talk / e-mail) 05:58, 6 June 2022 (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: Keep. GMG ^talk 10:38, 1 June 2022 (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]
- Keep, now that sourced quotes are listed. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@UDScott: It's not much, but I have sourced one of the quotes and added another sourced quote. BD2412 T 06:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, keep as improved, and likely able to be improved further. BD2412 T 07:21, 26 April 2022 (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 Northside Show (season 9)

Contested PROD for lack of notability. The problem remains. — UDScott (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 02:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same reason as UDScott. DawgDeputy (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Northside Show (season 10)

Contested PROD for lack of notability. The problem remains. — UDScott (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 02:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With UDScott on this one. DawgDeputy (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question: There are 3 (I think?) pages named The Northside Show (season x), where x=9,10,11. Why is 11 not nominated for deletion? Just curious to find out more about this area of WQ. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in that, should this page be deemed worthy of deletion, the other pages should also be deleted. At the time of nomination, this one had been given a PROD tag, which was removed, bringing it here. It was an oversight that the other pages were not also nominated at that time. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Project Storm (TV series)

Contested PROD for lack of notability. The problem remains (and I cannot find any listing of such a show). — UDScott (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF, Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus, Not a paid editor of Shueisha) (talk / e-mail) 19:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 15:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. Such a show exists, as shown here. Even if it's not notable, it should still be given SOME light, as with The Northside Show. 2603:6080:A700:1C39:30CC:E421:EF80:267 14:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Furthermore, the IP vandal (who has recently been blocked) provided invalid sources. DawgDeputy (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2022 (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: Already speedy deleted. GMG ^talk 12:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Nikita Vasilyevich Smirnov

Unremarkable subject; potential self-promotion — Jamie7687 (talk) 14:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 15:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete, appears to lack notability. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was a contested speedy deletion, but the user who removed the db template (User:Smirnovnikita) may have a conflict of interest and inappropriately blanked this page, and I still think the item meets CSD for unremarkable subject. --Jamie7687 (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2022 (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.

Shravan Jakkula

Contested PROD for lack of notability. The tag was removed, but the problem remains. — UDScott (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 19:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Except Foxinterviewer none are news. Just found all are press releases.२ तकर पेप्सी (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete unexceptional; foxinterviewer is unreliable ref — billinghurst sDrewth 08:54, 10 February 2022 (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 .

Hunter Biden

These are not "notable quotes". These are text messages from Hunter Biden acquired who knows how and disseminated through right-wing media in an attempt to re-elect Donald Trump. The story about the election smear campaign is notable, but the texts themselves are not. I notice that Hillary Clinton's emails are not on her page. The sources in this article are problematic. Is Glenn Greenwald's substack acceptable for WikiQuote? An attack by Donald Trump at a presidential debate? — Muboshgu (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the article's creator was indefinitely blocked and globally locked, FYI. Muboshgu (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 05:00, 10 February 2022 (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. BD2412 T 06:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Andrew Daniel

Non-notable, promotional. — —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Succeeds at notability WQ:N based on how many people who have quoted it: https://www.google.com/search?q=drew+gerald+quotes --Metaheal (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spamming and fails WQ:N. Java Hurricane 08:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 03:00, 6 March 2022 (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.

Template:Db-meta

Useless template that has been created by a well-known cross-wiki vandal. — Java Hurricane 08:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also the following pages created by this same IP.

Some of these templates, such as Imbox, may have uses; but others may not. I daresay it would be better if all these templates were discussed for their use, so that all the templates without use can be removed. Java Hurricane 08:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also noting that Template:Imbox seems to be useful, and hence I have not tagged it for deletion. Java Hurricane 08:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, useless template cruft having been identified, it should be removed so that people's time is not wasted by it in the future. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 09:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Nitin Pujari

Doesn't appear to be notable. May also be cross-wiki spam as it was moved back into draftspace on Wikipedia for being promotional and not notable. — Ferien (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am not sure that this is spam. With all due respect to enwiki seems like the draft was deleted after the creator asked for help at the Teahouse(?)

See: w:Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1140#Help_with_draft Ottawahitech (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ottawahitech: I've just checked and that account was blocked a sockpuppet (as seen by w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pcmishradigital) and was later globally locked. --Ferien (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Wikipedia article was deleted, Wikimedia category is at CfD and empty of any files. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 21:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Chevron Corporation

Not one notable quote, page is coatrack of editorializing about Steven Donziger , another article also created by same banned editor. (Two different accounts, but the same editor, now banned for abusing multiple accounts. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; as a second choice, make into a redirect. It's a w:WP:COATRACK. Antandrus (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 01:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Too many good quotes in the "Quotes about" section. – Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF, Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus, Not a paid editor of Shueisha) (talk / e-mail) 19:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Donziger

REASONING Not one notable quote, page is coatrack of editorializing about Donziger's dispute with Chevron Corporation, another article also created by same banned editor. (Two different accounts, but the same editor, now banned for abusing multiple accounts.) Even if you agree that Chevron behaved very badly to Donziger, disguising an editorial link farm as a Wikiquote article is wrong. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. w:WP:COATRACK. Antandrus (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have just added a quote which I hope is a "notable quote"? Ottawahitech (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 01:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

FakeWikipedia

Fake Wikipedia articles where one-sided opinions are presented as facts. Blocked POV-pushing editors created all these. Not one notable quote among them, nor is there likely to be on these topics. — HouseOfChange (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 23:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The socks created some articles that can be rescued by adding good quotes. But these "fake Wikipedia articles," we should delete, because the topics are not suited to Wikiquote:

~~United States embargo against Cuba created by GaneshaSis~~
United States sanctions created by GaneshaSis
Information Warfare Community created by Alphabravo2022
USS Liberty incident created by Will-SeymoreIII

Blocked user Om777om has not been shown by Checkuser to be the same as the socks above, but he created 3 articles in this category that were later edited by the socks.

~~H.R. 40 - Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act created by Om777om~~
Anti-Russian sentiment created by Om777om
Crimes Against Humanity Initiative created by Om777om

I apologize in advance if I'm not making this complex suggestion correctly. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, delete them all. I think doing these as a group is the best way to handle this problem. Antandrus (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I am not familiar with the term Fake Wikipedia articles
To my knowledge we do not delete pages because "the topics are not suited to Wikiquote"

Comment: I doubt anyone will check carefully all the articles the OP has suggested in one swift stroke of the keyboard, but hope the deleting admin will Ottawahitech (talk) 04:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ottawahitech: Real Wikipedia articles achieve NPOV by relying on fact-checked RS before making assertions. These articles use quote selection, images, and bolding to imply that one point of view is endorsed by wikivoice. I have spent hours trying to improve other "sock" articles, where the topic is deep enough to inspire notable quotes. Wikiquote has an article on Crimes against humanity, it doesn't need one for Crimes Against Humanity Initiative . And so on. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep them all! Those are exellent pages that all who inquire should know about. Why hide or cover-up the truth? Do you calling for deletion wish to help tyrants and harm the people? It is sad that so many are so very afraid of the truth and want to hide it. They should be sent to the doctor's office. They should be advised that truth is the people's best friend and the worst enemy of tyrants. Real winners never lie and liars never win. Bless their hearts, eventually they'll know what i mean and see that hiding the truth is very wrong and that it will eventually set us all free! 66.190.126.146 17:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep United States embargo against Cuba, a notable topic that can likely be improved by adding quotes reflecting other perspectives; delete the rest, as the topics covered are on a smaller scale or are less cohesive as topics. BD2412 T 07:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some may want to consider that this particular page has clearly had significantly more interest than the others, as reflected below:

1) Information Warfare Community, Created 8 Apr 2022, total pageviews: 450; 17 days; Avg pageviews per day: 26
The topic is extremely relevant to the current events, as nearly everyone witnesses the actions of this group, once known as the "Information Dominance Corps". ~anon 24.214.70.31 22:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I removed from this list one long article that I believe contains useful and good material we should retain: H.R. 40 - Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act. I nominated it because I thought that our article on the more general topic Reparations could be used to save any useful contents there. But in retrospect, that specific collection would be a useful resource and should be kept. My apologies for being too hasty. I am also removing the US embargo article in deference to the suggestion of BD2412 (talk · contributions). HouseOfChange (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I object to this, because it is too vaguely worded. How do you even define a "fake Wikipedia article"? --Spafky (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Spafky: "Fake Wikipedia" is a descriptor I made up on the spot when trying to explain why these articles shared a common problem: quotes all so POV they ended up sounding like undisputed facts about each topic. I spent many hours trimming and balancing other articles created by the LibraryClerk191 sockpuppets, but these seemed to me topics where it would be hard to find notable "quotable" quotes. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Information Warfare Community, and Crimes Against Humanity Initiative, both simply not very notable or quotable. Keep USS Liberty incident, notable quotes exist and it’s generally a notable incident; criticism of the official accounts isn’t some random fringe opinion even if most of the quotes are/were from an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist (broken clocks are right twice a day, yada yada). Delete Anti-Russian sentiment, at least for now; POV-fork invasion apologist magnet. Neutral on United States sanctions, it’s a notable topic but I’m worried it’s too much of a POV fork. Dronebogus (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2022 (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: Keep. GMG ^talk 10:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Paywall

Contested PROD - the issue was that the only quote is not sourced. The given source does not contain the quote. — UDScott (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 21:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

~~Delete~~, unless properly sourced quotes are provided. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, now that quotes have been added. ~ UDScott (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per w:WP:HEY I found and added some sourced quotes, and I am sure more could be found. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2022 (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 per consensus. GMG ^talk 10:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Marian Renta

Quotes from a nonnotable person. The creator, who seems to have a COI with the subject, has been trying to create a Wikipedia article about the subject and then has moved to Wikiquote — Guerillero (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 15:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Delete as nonnotable. The Wikipedia draft from February is sparsely sourced and Google turns up no sign of GNG or NMUSIC. Maybe TOOSOON, in which case an article can be made after she is notable. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; notability not established. Antandrus (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 22:41, 31 May 2022 (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.

Template:Tv.com show

TV.com has been offline for several months and thus, all pages that use this template carry broken links to the defunct website. Similar templates that used this website have been deleted from Wikipedia a while ago for similar reasons. — WikiPediaAid (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC) Vote closes: 21:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 22:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and somebody please remove from hundreds of pages using it, including the redirect at Template:TV.com. ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete test page. – Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF, Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus, Not a paid editor of Shueisha) (talk / e-mail) 19:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was not at test page. The template worked fine until the destination of the link went off-line. ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:12, 14 June 2022 (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 as housekeeping. Not a template. Test page. GMG ^talk 22:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Template:Trusted List

More of a personal template that could be moved into userspace — Ferien (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 22:00, 24 May 2022 (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: Already deleted. GMG ^talk 10:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Template:Bad

Very unlikely template redirect — Ferien (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just delete it, Template:ds is better redirect anyway. – Ilovemydoodle (talk | e-mail) {DELETION IN PROGRESS} 06:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ilovemydoodle, if you want it deleted now, you can put {{Delete|user request}} on the page. --Ferien (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 14:00, 29 May 2022 (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.

Thisarana Arama

This organization has been repeatedly promoted on enwiki. As it stands I don't think an article for it falls under the scope of Wikiquote. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 13:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to lack notability. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, as deleted and salted at Wikipedia, and also note the the "quotes" are not actually sourced. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this page has also been deleted on the Simple English Wikipedia for the same reasons. link Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 07:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Wow! Wubbzy!

Context etc but no quotes. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 13:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, for lack of quotes. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF) (talk / e-mail) 18:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We Can Be Heroes

The subject of this article has changed from a previous television series to a later film of the same name. The article contains no quotes supporting the latter, which is now the subject of the article. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 13:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a couple of months since the article's subject was changed and no quotes. If quotes can be found and added then that would help. Possibly a disambiguation needed. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 13:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for lack of quotes. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deserve it

Appears to just consist of a single quote. Could be moved to David Harker potentially; current title is definitely wrong. All depends on if David Harker is notable enough here. See w:David Harker. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 13:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move quote to Merit, and delete this page. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because no sourced quote. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Lent

Appears non-notable, also see w:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jeremy_Lent, deleted from enwiki for lack of notability. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 17:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 monkeypox outbreak

Listed material us unlikely to meet Wikiquote:Quotability; the quotes are just ordinary objective reports of the situation with no preference on their specific wording. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quotes might be bad, but it's too notable to simply delete. Edit: Delete, there is nothing really good about the article. – Ilovemydoodle (talk | e-mail) 09:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried to look for quotes which are not "bad" concerning this topic? I tried and couldn't find any. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@1234qwer1234qwer4: If there really are zero good quotes, than consider my vote to a "Delete". – Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF, Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus, Not a paid editor of Shueisha) (talk / e-mail) 19:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@1234qwer1234qwer4, I am glad you have joined the discussion. I hope I can ask you a couple of questions without being accused of of being incivil:
Do you recall ever adding quotes to any article on WQ?, if so can you provide a few examples of your work.

Do you recall improving any health related articles on WQ?, ditto.
I am asking because I don't have a good memory, but do not recall seeing any of your content building work on WQ. I am also wondering about your comment below:

there is no merit in attempting that on things that "just simply may not belong here"
Is it your opinion that this article simply does not belong on WQ, and if so why do you believe this? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC) In regards to "I tried and couldn't find any": Why are you so certain that none of the 251 inline references of the enwp article have any quotable quotes? Ottawahitech (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I am not accusing you of being incivil, but I have already said below: VfD is about discussing articles, not editors. I do not see how these questions contribute to the discussion (with the rest of the community, keep in mind, not just the nominator or any other arbitrary user specifically) on whether or not the quotes on this page meet Wikiquote's inclusion standards? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@1234qwer1234qwer4, Why won't you answer questions such as
"Why are you so certain that none of the 251 inline references of the enwp article have any quotable quotes?"

or
"Is it your opinion that this article simply does not belong on WQ?"

This has nothing to do with commenting on editors and everything to do with the rationale you used in nominating this article for deletion. Ottawahitech (talk) 02:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you added the first of these question in the edit I conflicted with and I did not bother to look what it was about at that moment, sorry. The condition of being listed at Wikipedia is somewhat arbitrary, but discussing whether or not there are quotable quotes on the topic at hand is the point of this venue. I have not found any; however, so far nobody of the other participants could provide any such material either. If you can, great, but so far this article does not contain any quotes worthy of inclusion, and deleting it would not keep editors off from recreating it with appropriate quotes.

As for the second question, you may or may not know that Wikiquote:Votes for deletion "discusses whether a page should be deleted or not", so you can assume that anybody nominating a page for deletion here does indeed opine "that this article simply does not belong on WQ". The reasons for that opinion are generally stated in the nomination, so maybe you could try looking there. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 05:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ottawahitech: By asking if an editor has ever added a quote on a platform exclusively for quotes is slightly offensive. – Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF, Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus, Not a paid editor of Shueisha) (talk / e-mail) 02:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why? There are many users who have-not added any quotes. Ottawahitech (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in its current form. I agree that the topic is notable, but the listed quotes are not. If better quotes were found, I would change my mind, but as is it is not worthy of keeping. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Going to attempt some research for this topic. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 19:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can technically find quotes but they don't meet Wikiquote:Quotability. It's just medical advice and news reporting. I would propose to delete unless such quotes can be found. It may be too soon for them to exist. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 22:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a recent news topic that has so far attracted no notable quotable quotes. HouseOfChange (talk) 08:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not really quotable materials at this point. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I have just added a quote
- Comment Why are the participants in this discussion not spending more time on building instead of destroying? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - FYI https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikiquote.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=Wikiquote:Votes_for_deletion/2022_monkeypox_outbreak%7C2022_monkeypox_outbreak Ottawahitech (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ottawahitech:, I would read through Wikiquote:Quotability. The comparison between the two page's pageviews doesn't really make sense. The statement that editors who, like you, are "destroying" is uncivil and makes me think of what a new user with no experience would say, not what one who has done genuinely good work, like you, would say. Not everything warrants a Wikiquote page; that doesn't mean there's nowhere the page would be useful, it just simply may not belong here. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 16:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rubbish computer, I would rather not debate who is more uncivil/incivil. I would rather lay out some simple arithmetic that everyone can agree with:

seven non-IP users have contributed to this deletion discussion
four non-IP users and three IP users contributed to the actual article that is being nominated for deletion in this discussion
on 21 May 2022 the article was created by an IP user, it was tagged as a Proposed deletion within 3 hours
- Proposed deletions (PRODs) are described in a WQ-Policy namely: Wikiquote:Proposed deletion
  - According to this policy: "This process should only be used for articles that are uncontroversial deletion candidates that obviously do not belong in the Wikiquote quote compendium
- On 31 May 2022 I removed the PROD tag, and had my action promptly reverted with a stern please wait for an admin edit summary.
  - I spent additional time on the tagger's user-talkpage to remind them that anyone is free to remove PROD-tags, no need for admin permission. In total this used up 6 more edits that contributed zero improvement to the article, and used up time I would have preferred to use adding content to our compendium of quotes.
- On June 1 I removed the PROD tag for the second time, just to have the original tagger replace it with a Votes for deletion (VFD) tag

Summary: Only two non-IP users, out of a total 11, attempted to improve the article. There were 17+6+12=35 corresponding edits, but only 6 edits were an attempt to improve the article. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Ottawahitech, but please follow w:WP:CIVIL. – Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF, Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus, Not a paid editor of Shueisha) (talk / e-mail) 15:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how bringing up the edits to the page is relevant in this discussion. VfD is about discussing articles, not editors. I have already apologised for reverting your removal of the PROD tag on my talk page, so I am not sure what point you are trying to make about it now, neither do I see what is objectively wrong with "replac[ing] it with a Votes for deletion (VFD) tag", which means nothing but starting a discussion after your removal made clear that the article would not be an "uncontroversial deletion candidate" as required by PROD. As for "attempt[s] to improve the article", I believe @Rubbish computer's comment you were replying to already explained that there is no merit in attempting that on things that "just simply may not belong here" – and a web search shows that there are no quotes meeting the criteria of this project on this topic at the moment. (Feel free to prove that wrong though, but do remember Wikiquote:Quotability.) 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rubbish computer, Re: "The comparison between the two page's pageviews doesn't really make sense."

It makes perfect sense to me. The comparison between pageviews of the page nominated for deletion and the page where the deletion is being debated clearly shows that a lot of energy is being diverted away from improving the article in question. AND, unfortunately, it appears this trend will accelerate in the next days.

I am saying this with a heavy heart, but after reading a seemingly unrelated discussion regarding the use of paywalled sources on WQ, it appears I am not the only person around who feels WQ is in trouble. The person who conveyed this information is, unlike most of the participants on this deletion board, someone who has contributed A LOT of content to WQ, but rarely participates in discussion. I am not the most eloquent person around, and I do not enjoy participating in Dramah boards. The only reason I am here is my gut feeling that deletion does not fix the important issues we face trying to build this "compendium of quotes". All this does is take away attention from the real issues that we must confront.

IMIO we should be drawing new participants into more productive pursuits and away from endless discussion. People without experience in building content should not be making decisions for the rest. YMMV. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in taking this conversation any further. I voted Delete based on Wikiquote:Quotability, the article doesn't meet it, that's literally it. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 18:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AntisocialRyan (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikiquote:Quotability is a guideline that describes what good quotes are, it does not tell us when articles should be deleted. Wikiquote: Deletion policy is where we should be looking to see if this article should be kept or deleted, and it is clear that the rationale for deletion that has been used in this deletion discussion cannot be used when one follows official policy.

The policy states quite clearly that articles which are capable of meeting inclusion criteria should not be deleted. The key word is capable. In other words, articles which currently do not meet inclusion criteria, but are capable of meeting this criteria in future, should be kept. Since WQ has dozens of similar articles (see: Category:Diseases and disorders), I don't see how anyone can convince us that an article about this particular disease is not capable of meeting WQ criteria. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I happened to see two articles on monkeypox the may contain decent quotes:

When will this VFD be closed? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Townsend

This article in its current form is completely non-neutral. There are several quotes but they're all taken from a single Facebook post. The article creator was also globally locked. I would propose deleting this page unless reliably sourced quotes can be found and presented neutrally. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 16:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A few thoughts: yes, this person is notable (and has been reported in the news several times) - and it is likely that more sourced quotes can be found to fill the page. But it is also likely that any added quotes will continue to show a certain view that this person has. As long as the quotes are properly sourced and are from this person, I don't see the issue since that is her view on life. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UDScott, I will attempt to expand this article today with new quotes. Been looking to create some content. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UDScott, I'm willing to withdraw this nomination, seems pointless to leave it open. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 18:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UDScott, I am not sure a 350 word message posted on Facebook behind a log-in barrier is entirely "properly sourced", even for a provincial senator. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ningauble, yes you are probably right - and hopefully that quote can be trimmed down some (and other (better) quotes can be added). I guess I was just focused on the "non-neutral" argument being made. ~ UDScott (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Campbell Cooper

Doesn't appear to be notable. Not entirely certain though so taking it here. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I would tend to agree - this person appears to lack notability. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable self-published (Tellwell Talent) writer with the chutzpa to try to self-promote his "forthcoming" work on Wikiquote. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Also, a blog is not a source. – Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF, Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus, Not a paid editor of Shueisha) (talk / e-mail) 19:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many Horses

Certainly an interesting topic but doesn't appear to be notable. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree that this specific person is not really notable, but I wonder if a home can't be found for the quote on another page, perhaps an appropriate theme page? ~ UDScott (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UDScott, that's a good idea. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 19:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Olubori

This article appears to be advertising; however, this is an issue that can be fixed. The problem is I don't think this person is necessarily notable. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 19:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with a lack of notability for this person. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, far below notability. – Ilovemydoodle (talk / e-mail) 12:47, 3 June 2022 (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: Speedy deleted. @Rubbish computer: if there's insufficient context to really even tell the subject, then it can be nominated for speedy deletion. GMG ^talk 12:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Mian Sahib

It's unclear what this article is about, and therefore if it belongs here. It seems to be the name of a small town in Pakistan: w:Mian Sahib. There's a single quote which I can't immediately verify. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 19:14, 2 June 2022 (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. Apparently an attempt to expand social media presence for an unremarkable graduate student. Not a lot of reason to let this sit around for weeks or months. GMG ^talk 12:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Nicole Khumo Sinuku

While there isn't no claim to notability at all, I question the notability of this article. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 22:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for lack of notability. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2022 (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.

Tayyab Mahmood Sheikh

Not notable — Ilovemydoodle (talk | e-mail) 08:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC) Vote closes: 09:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as doesn't appear notable. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 09:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Notable Because It was having a source added by me —This unsigned comment is by GHOSTWORKER (talk • contribs) .~~
Just because you added it doesn’t make it notable. – Ilovemydoodle (talk / e-mail) 02:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. The cited "sources" are purely self promotion. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notable He has a strong knowledge panel on google along with social media followers having some articles and having many other things —This unsigned comment is by GHOSTWORKER (talk • contribs) .
Still not notable. – Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF, Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus, Not a paid editor of Shueisha) (talk / e-mail) 20:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Study Series

Appears to be part of a book series; I don't think it's a notable series overall. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 17:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but move to a page for the author (Maria V. Snyder) and clean up the formatting a bit. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move provisionally to author page per UDScott: provided that both the format and the content are cleaned up. This children's (nominally "young adult") literature needs to be scrubbed for weak material lacking real quotability. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Turning Red

This page generally just sucks, WP:TNT – Ilovemydoodle (talk / e-mail) 03:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 04:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep. It's quality aside, it is obviously a notable work from which quotes are appropriate. Yes, It needs some trimming, but it does not seem beyond repair to me and there are plenty of similar pages here. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs cutting down and not deletion. I don't like WP:TNT personally, I've found rewriting an article can be done relatively easily. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 18:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tshepang Chilume

Not notable as far as I can tell. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 12:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF) (talk / e-mail) 13:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KIAN BARAZANDEH

Lack of notability - was previously tagged for speedy deletion but the tag was removed. — UDScott (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Violation of w:WP:SELFPROMOTE. – Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF, Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus, Not a paid editor of Shueisha) (talk / e-mail) 22:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 22:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Delete. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 21:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per this. Wikimedia projects are not for self-promotion. Antandrus (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please check every references before suggesting to remove for lack of notability! KIAN BARAZANDEH is an international actor and
Fashion Model singed with independent mgmt baed in Milan Italy. He's been acting in numerous movies and TV shows as well. This is
disrespectful Please stop this behavior. Stop spamming.
Some of References ⬇️
https://www.amazon.com/prime-video/actor/Kian-Barazandeh/nm13636281/ref=atv_pp_co_4
https://m.imdb.com/name/nm13636281/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_4
https://filmfreeway.com/KianBarazandeh
https://starworldmagazine.com/exclusive-interview-with-kian-barazandeh/
https://dizifilmdergisi.com/kian-brazande-moda-dunyasinin-gozdesi-kian-brazande-fashion-worlds-favorite-27416-haberi
https://www.fashionmagazinenyc.com/post/meet-the-international-model-kian-barazandeh
https://twistedmalemag.com/kian-barazandeh-model-actor-and-former-ifbb-mens-physique-champion/

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: Already deleted.

AA Momodu

Not no claim of notability, as this person is a published author, but unlikely to be notable enough to keep. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 15:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources. – Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF, Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus, Not a paid editor of Shueisha) (talk / e-mail) 15:20, 9 June 2022 (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 Fixies: Top Secret

Not notable, no sources, no lead section — Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF, Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus, Not a paid editor of Shueisha) (talk / e-mail) 19:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 20:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Hagumimana Robert

I don't think this person is notable. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 19:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed, also no sources. – Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF, Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus, Not a paid editor of Shueisha) (talk / e-mail) 22:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kirby: Right Back At Ya!

No sources — Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF, Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus, Not a paid editor of Shueisha) (talk / e-mail) 22:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 23:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep I don't think having no sources is a good reason for deletion; sources can always be added. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 13:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What sources are you looking for? These quotes appear to come from the work itself. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that the quotes come from the episodes people clearly say they heard them in. 2601:184:200:EA00:29C0:6FC5:756:E7B0 00:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Onward (film)

Gradual rot from vandalism – Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF, Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus, Not a paid editor of Shueisha) (talk / e-mail) 23:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 00:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep Vandalism can be reverted quickly. Although vandalism isn't always spotted on here straight away, once it's found it can just be reverted quickly. I don't think this is a sufficient rationale for deletion. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 10:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - vandalism is not a valid reason to delete a page. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Patrol

No sources – Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF, Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus, Not a paid editor of Shueisha) (talk / e-mail) 12:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 13:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep I don't think this is an adequate reason for deletion. Sources can be added. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 13:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - what sources are you expecting? The source of the quotes is the program itself. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Winnie the Pooh and a Day for Eeyore

No source, lots of vandalism – Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF, Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus, Not a paid editor of Shueisha) (talk / e-mail) 12:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 13:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep I don't think these are good reasons for deletion. If there's a lot of vandalism then the page can be protected. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 13:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see any reason from your nomination that is compelling. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon/Season 23

Created months ago, still has no quotes at all. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 20:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless content is added. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete of course because no quotes. ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alireza Kohany

Lack of notability. — UDScott (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 02:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Delete. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 16:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GRP

Tagging GRP's sockpuppets is just a waste of time. Dedicating a whole template to this also gives him way more attention than necessary, and goes against w:WP:DENY too — Ferien (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; agree with rationale. Since 2005 he has made probably over ten thousand socks. Seriously, don't bother. Revert, block, ignore them. Also: many of these aren't GRP anyway, they're Wikinger. For obvious reasons I will not reveal in a public place how I can tell. Anyway, w:WP:DENY. w:Memory hole. w:Damnatio memoriae. Antandrus (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think w:WP:DENY is the best policy for dealing with LTA. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 15:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Waste of time and actively unhelpful per the reasons stated above. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 16:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Template:PGRP

Same logic as deleting the related GRP template: Tagging GRP's sockpuppets is just a waste of time. Dedicating a whole template to this also gives him way more attention than necessary, and goes against w:WP:DENY too — Ferien (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; agree with rationale. Since 2005 he has made probably over ten thousand socks. Seriously, don't bother. Revert, block, ignore them. Also: many of these aren't GRP anyway, they're Wikinger. For obvious reasons I will not reveal in a public place how I can tell. Anyway, w:WP:DENY. w:Memory hole. w:Damnatio memoriae. Antandrus (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per w:WP:DENY. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 15:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Waste of time and actively unhelpful per the reasons stated above. The template also appears to be broken. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I understand deleting the GRP template as it is only used for marking an already banned user, but this one is useful for notify admins to block a user for being a GRP sock. – Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF, Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus, Not a paid editor of Shueisha) (talk / e-mail) 22:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a page for notifying administrators about vandalism: it's called WQ:VIP. Creating a userpage to notify admins still gives an LTA way too much attention, especially since the userpage is likely going to remain after that. And it doesn't even serve as a means of notification: an admin can watchlist VIP, but not all existent and non-existent userpages. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, delete the page. But, please keep Template:PotentialLTA (should be renamed, though). – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus) (talk / e-mail) 10:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 16:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Spider-Man: The City That Never Sleeps

No quotes at all. No quotes since being created last year. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 16:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete of course because no quotes. ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-sisters

Unnecessary XNR. – Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF, Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus, Not a paid editor of Shueisha) (talk / e-mail) 13:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this has been warred over endlessly on Wikipedia. While maybe there’s some legitimate reason not to have a cross-namespace redirect for this topic on WP, this seems like an unnecessary removal of a potentially useful shortcut. Dronebogus (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dronebogus: Well, I tried to do something similar, and here was the outcome, there's no reason why you should receive preferential treatment. – Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF, Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus, Not a paid editor of Shueisha) (talk / e-mail) 14:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a user, not a page. Pages can have some legitimate XNRs but I don’t think I’ve ever seen a user have one. Dronebogus (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 14:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Knowledge Kids

Spam, broken page, (improperly) copied from Wikipedia. – Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF, Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus, Not a paid editor of Shueisha) (talk / e-mail) 17:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 18:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Delete, for lack of quotes (already was given a prod tag that was removed). ~ UDScott (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i want the page to be free to edit. 2607:FEA8:5C9F:72D0:B55C:971A:C070:B0C2 00:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some proper quotes can be found. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 14:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Freaky Flyers

Not notable. – Ilovemydoodle (Not WMF, Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus, Not a paid editor of Shueisha) (talk / e-mail) 21:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 22:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep, not sure why this is any different than any of the other pages for video games. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not the most detailed page but doesn't need to be deleted. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page)

Elito Circa

Entirely promotional. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 13:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom (and note that this is a contested PROD page). ~ UDScott (talk) 12:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, already deleted at Wikipedia; and the article is entirely unsourced. ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BlockedLTA

Similarly to Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Template:GRP, this template is unhelpful in general since DENY applies to all kinds of LTAs. No point in perpetuating returning vandals which can equally be blocked just as such; simply a waste of time to their benefit. — ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand deleting the GRP Template, but this is often useful and is used by other Templates. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus) (talk / e-mail) 09:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So far I have only seen you using this (specifically for GRP too, despite the fact that you were told tagging them is not useful), and I don't see the templates you are talking about. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@1234qwer1234qwer4: I have used it for actually useful purposes, I promise to not use it for GRP ever again. Also, just because a Template can be used wrong doesn't mean it should be deleted. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus) (talk / e-mail) 09:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Template:BlockedSockpuppet. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus) (talk / e-mail) 09:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DENY. No not move to a new {{BlockedSockpuppet}} template, {{Sockpuppet}} is adequate. Just stop celebrating misbehavior. Seriously, stop it. ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 10:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Delete per WP:DENY. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 19:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Template:SuspectedLTA

Media of India

Not quotable. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus) (talk / e-mail) 04:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 05:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Bowser

Insufficient quotes, should be merged into Mario (franchise) – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus) (talk / e-mail) 01:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 02:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 author's request --Ferien (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Template:Ping all users

Aside from the fact that this is a colossally bad idea for many many reasons, it wouldn't even work because the ping feature has a hard limit of 50 users at a time. By implication, I'm also nominating all its subpages. While making this nomination, I blanked out the main template for the servers' sanity, let alone that of the users. I found this template by checking what linked to my user page. — Graham87 (talk) 11:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Failed Template due to echo limit. – Ilovemydoodle (Not a sockpuppet of Antandrus) (talk / e-mail) 20:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closes: 12:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Delete While this had good intentions, it's not likely to be useful. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 19:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with prejudice to the very idea of pestering editors on an industrial scale. Watchlists, talk pages, and various @ templates exist to ping editors. Per Graham87, a "colossally bad idea." HouseOfChange (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikiquote:Votes for deletion

The process

Requesting deletions

Voting on deletions

Closing votes and deleting articles

Reviewing closed votes

Deletion candidates

FakeWikipedia

Navigation menu

Search