Wikiquote:Votes for deletion

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search

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


Neither of the two quotes added actually specify the age of the children in question, and even in recent high profile cases like Kevin Spacey, commentators are not using the technically correct terminology for the age of his alleged teenage victims, preferring to call him a pedophile. Unless someone cares to add quotes specifically using the term hebephilia, adding quotations to this page, instead of pedophilia, just makes them harder to find and creates a page with largely duplicated material. I imagine any usages of hebephilia are unlikely to be modern outside of select psychological and psychiatric writings unlikely to have been quoted. — CensoredScribe (talk) 02:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 03:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Delete: I agree the article should be deleted, the quotes do not seem to be talking about Hebephilia in particular. 08:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep ; one of the quotes specifies an age while the others were made in the context of early adolescence. Eatzham567 (talk) 10:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Hindu–Islamic relations

The following article was clearly created for a biased perspective from User:Jedi3. Many articles created by this user Jedi3 have the same Hindu nationalist perspective, negative about Muslims and Christians especially those during Muslim and Christian rule while never highlighting any positive quote. Wikiquote should have neutrality. But only one agenda is pushed here, the other side is not. It is clear from the editor's edit history that he only cares for one perspective. — MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 23:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep: This is not a page such as I would personally create, and the agenda of the page creator does seem to be deplorably biased towards presenting ignorant, confused, aggressive and intolerant statements and forms of Hindu nationalism such as are intensely hostile against other traditions; but neither the page nor its creator need to remain so biased with the passages of Time and the growth of Wisdom amidst Humanity. There are always problems when people have definitely intense biases against the ideas of others, and extremely partisan and sectarian agenda are manifest in their attitudes and actions, but usually the most appropriate means of countering these is to indicate countering observations and assertions within the ranges of various themes. This is not always so simple, easy or convenient a measure as simply removing statements which in various ways one perceives to be incorrect, improper, misleading or unfair but it can ultimately be the most effective, fair and reliable means of countering most forms of error and improper aggression against diversity and liberty. ~ Kalki·· 23:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - I too am inclined to keep even a biased page, provided it has properly sourced and relevant quotes. I would simply suggest that rather than trying to delete the page one should instead try to find properly sourced and relevant quotes that might represent an alternative POV. ~ UDScott (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article does not seem to have any well-known quote as well, at least mostly not much known except those with the same ideology. Besides biased editing, I think these statements are better on suitable Wikipedia articles rather than here. In addition, the objective of the user clearly doesn't seem to be a honest and neutral contribution to Wikiquote. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 08:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


Unmemorable quotes, only two exist. Second one is about Shahjahan's actions there, not focusing on quotes about the city. — 11:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 12:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

. Delete - Prima facie they are unmemorable. The page is pointless. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

. Delete: I've seen the disruptive edits made by the creator editor. And to be honest some article with unmemorable two quotes shouldn't be here. 15:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep. Seriously, deleting the page for the holiest of the sacred cities in Hinduism? That the page can be expanded is obvious, but it is not a cause for deletion. It also appears that the deletion nomination is motivated by suppression of "inconvenient" information, which is not what a wiki is about. As others have said, I'd also suggest to you to try to find other quotes that might represent an alternative POV instead of trying to suppress or censor information. Please also note that one person should only vote once in the deletion discussion (not saying anybody voted twice, but it looks a bit suspicious). The fact that, in the words of Diane Eck, during these "hard centuries", "parts of Banaras were destroyed repeatedly", and "at least six times the temples of Kashi were destroyed", is an important part of the history of Benares and deserves a quote. Varanasi is the city of temples, there is no reason why there shouldn't be a quote about its sacred places. But you're right that they could be placed in an article with quotes about Hindu temples in Varanasi, if there are enough quotes to justify a separate article, but otherwise they default to this article. I have already started expanding the article and will expand and improve it more. --Jedi3 (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Comment: It is your burden that an article worth staying here is created, not mine and I don't have the time to try to correct your article anyway. It consisted of mostly two unmemorable quotes. That's why I listed it for deletion like a normal article. Are you someone special who shouldn't be added? You didn't bother editing it for months till the final day of the deletion discussion. Also please note that "Temples under construction/Unfinished temple" is not the same as "Existing temple at the time". The article is not about Temples of Varanasi, but your quote about "Unfinished temples" under Shah Jahan is not about those Temples already existing and complete. At least quote correctly about the topic you refer to. 12:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Comment: Jedi3 You must remain neutral, read WQ:NPOV. There should be no agenda-pushing here. Quoting Hindutva authors often whose quotes are not known much except outside one section - believers in Hindutva, does not qualify it to be an article worth being here. Though there are other authors as well, you have clearly never followed to do anything except quote as per your bias. Everyone must follow the rules. Neutrality is a part of Wikiquote rules and policies.
And it is you who should first try to find all POVs to create a perfect article rather than ask others. My vote is is not for "supression of information", only "supression of bias/non-neutral editing and poor quality quotes". This is a Wiki of quotes. Not Wikipedia where you add facts and inform the readers about the facts. Even your new content is not much really notable. Only Mark Twain is an exception but not much. The article is also not about unfinished temples which you quoted or even any completed temples. Your comments about "parts of Benares" destroyed are irreleveant to some under-construction temples. This should be about Varanasi, not another topic. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep – see the Mark Twain quote. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Comment:This vote has been cast beyond the vote closing limit. Regardless, I fail to see how one quote from Twain can make it worthy of staying even though the others are really not worth considering. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • If MonsterHunter is so concerned about User:DanielTom voting "too late", should we also be concerned about suspicious possible double or triple voting? IP User: from Punjab suddenly appeared on 27 Dec (the IP's edits on wikipedia, which also tried to remove information on poor excuses, were reverted by an admin on wikipedia). On the same day, only few hours later, User:MonsterHunter pops up and nominates the first article for deletion. One day later another IP User: from Punjab nominates the second article for deletion. Next day, MonsterHunter also votes for deletion of the Varanasi article, a few days later a new IP User: from Punjab again votes to delete the Varanasi article. At which point the suspicious activity was mentioned in the discussion. Since then MonsterHunter and IPs from Punjab have been editing in the same manner, both in wikiquote and in wikipedia. Please understand that one person should only vote once in the discussion, otherwise it would skew the discussion. All this effort for an article that, before the deletion nomination, was only viewed about 5 times a week? (It is also possible that these accounts from Punjab are different persons or friends, but the coincidence of so many accounts from Punjab at the same time looks suspicious.) --Jedi3 (talk) 11:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Jedi3 I've actually been present here for some time and made a few edits before, I haven't just "shown up" suddenly. But it seems to me you are not happy about your actions being notified or reverted. There might be IPs from one country as these articles might only mostly arouse interest in one country. But anyone can vote here. I've seen this "suspicious drama" claim before. I also added Daniel Tom's vote back a few minutes later after my "concern". My only concern is this - Please follow the rules Jedi3. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Also while talking, my concern is as to why DanielTom is suddenly backing you up on every article. Like you who showed up at last chance [though after months of doing nothing], he shows up at the last chance to vote here. I did some digging and also found out he's on another article Tipu Sultan which you were as well. And you both seem to be making the same statements while knowing little about the rules. Your actions seem really fishy to me. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
The suspicious votes are all from the same region/same state (Punjab), and only hours or days apart, and they all gave very similar voting rationale ("unmemorable"). In contrast, my voting rationale was very different from the voting rationale that User:DanielTom gave. --Jedi3 (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The limit is not set in stone. More !votes (especially by experienced users) are always welcome. This discussion showed up in the Recent Changes, which I patrol pretty much every day, so I decided to look at the article. To me, it's obvious that it should be kept, and will be kept. Re "why DanielTom is suddenly backing you up on every article" – the answer is, he isn't. I'm not actually "backing" anyone. When I see unreasonable removals of material in the Recent Changes, I revert them. That's what happened at Tipu Sultan. And the quote I restored wasn't even added by Jedi3 in the first place. So I don't see how that's relevant to this discussion. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC) P.S. MonsterHunter32 edited this page at "23:14, 5 January 2018‎", and I cast my !vote at "23:35, 5 January 2018‎". ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Jedi3 DanielTom "Unmemorable" is used as a reason by nearly everyone to list on Votes for deletion. What kind of comments are you making? Also I didn't say your reason was same as DanielTom, I said your behaviour was same. And you seem to have the same behaviour of telling others what to do and not. But as for reason they do seem similar, Jedi3 says at the last time he'll add a few relevant quotes but considers little relevant changes except one quote, Daniel Tom shows up after vote limit expires and says he supports it because of one measly quote. Also DanielTom, it is suprising how you are showing up for one user again and again. Also as far as I remember I only added a comment on 5 January, I didn't vote. There seems to be a similar pattern of blaming others of made-up claims and altering facts to push your agenda. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

It is not "surprising" considering I'm being pinged. And I didn't say you voted. You edited it, so it showed up in the Recent Changes. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
DanielTom I was pinging both of you as you both had commented. And even if it showed up, I'm still surprised as to why you are showing up at the same places as him or why you'll be interested. I am constantly monitoring him, that's why I show up wherever he edit-wars or makes disruptive edits. But that certainly is nowhere the case for you. And your reasons for your edits do seem rather nonsensical. I don't say you are necessarily the same, but there is something suspicious in the similar behaviour. Anyway many articles have been deleted on Wikiquote for having "unmemorable" or non-notable quotes. The page should be improved and I hope User:Jedi3 makes a real effort. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep — I see no creditable reason for eliminating a page on a notable location because it has not yet developed beyond a few quotes, or because the creator of the page is disliked, and its current state seems to be one where notable quotes are presented. ~ Kalki·· 22:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Comment: Another user showing up out of nowhere. There is only one notable quote. Votes to keep it are being made over frivolous reasons one after another. Regardless I will change my vote if someone honestly attempts at improving the page beyond one notable quote. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
This user MonsterHunter, and his many IPs, have been disruptive from the start. His only reason to be here seems to be their vendetta and wikihounding against me. He even admits above that he is stalking me ("I am constantly monitoring him"). This includes revengeful deletion nominations of articles I created like this one, reverts for perfectly reasonable edits like here [1] [2] and many other articles on very poor excuses, and countless personal attacks. If this continues, and if he is not blocked by then, I will be demanding an interaction ban. --Jedi3 (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Jedi3 You are talking about vendetta. But had this vote went in your favour, you wouldn't have been bothered of commenting here like in my deletion petition regarding Hindu–Islamic relations, let alone blame me of using IPs. Besides if you don't want to interact with me, you can stop. It is not my fault. You want to do what you want, then I'm going to have you blocked for edit-warring. You are also making-up rules, eg calling for quotes to be shifted to disputed or Misattributed (they're the same thing in meaning) when rules like Wikiquote:Misattributed and Template:Remove say only quotes that are genuinely Disputed or Misattributed should be shifted to "Misattributed" section. I warn you not to make-up your own rules and follow the actual rules. You add your edits based on poorly made-up excuses. Read the rules. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Also I reverted your edit here and here on Wilkie Collins because I don't see an entire section for two small quotes necessary. Simple. It was I who improved the article significantly while you never bothered to improve it, check the history. Don't blame me. You are the ome who never really cared about the article of Wilkie Collins, so please don't pretend about it. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Thomas Lux

This is not a famous phrase, it is a copy-paste poetry. To copy textually a poetry from a book it is not a copyright violation? — Jaluj (talk) 03:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 04:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - we have the fair use -principle - the poems can be copied up to 250 words.--Risto hot sir (talk) 08:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep – one poem, from the book The Drowned River: New Poems, is hardly a copyright violation, though it could be trimmed just to be on the safe side. A quick google search shows that the whole poem is published in various poetry anthologies (Good Poems; The Best of Poetry in Motion; How Did This Happen?: Poems for the Not So Young Anymore) and books about the art of poetry (Next Word, Better Word: The Craft of Writing Poetry). ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. This should constitute fair use. If not, then per the DMCA, the copyright owner can contact us and give their opinion to the contrary. BD2412 T 19:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Fair Use (and with BD2412's endorsement). ~ UDScott (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


This and other pages about virtually-unknown Japanese poets (who don't qualify for a Wikipedia article) created by User:Risto hot sir based on a single source (Yoel Hoffmann's Japanese Death Poems) clog up the Japanese poets category, which should include only truly notable poets, and taken together probably constitute a copyright violation (close to 100 Wikiquote pages, everything taken from 1 book). I think all those pages should be deleted, not just Doyu, of course. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 15:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - Many of these poems have lasted hundreds of years. This book exists - check ISBN! The Japanese people haven't written that these poets are unnotable. What means "virtually-unknown"? There are evidences - like the statue in Kobe - that Hoffmann has done excellent work. And we at Wikiquote should be proud having articles Wikipedia and Google don't have no idea! --Risto hot sir (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC) - I don't understand Japanese writing, but many persons do. They could search at Japanese Google. --Risto hot sir (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. This appears to be a real person, whose poetry is really still remembered. BD2412 T 04:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Happy Tree Friends

Nothing on this page represents anything close to being memorable. — UDScott (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 22:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Moustafa Nour

Contested PROD for lack of notability (as well as an inability to verify the quotes, since the lone source is not in English). — UDScott (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 14:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - cross-wiki self-promotion by sock puppet of Nour; see Commons. W\|/haledad (Talk to me) 18:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

W\|/haledad Source changed
You can see it

Yes, I see it. The source is now no longer Wikidata, but a Goodreads page submitted by yourself. It's still cross-wiki self-promotion of and by a person who is completely non-notable. W\|/haledad (Talk to me) 20:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
W\|/haledad You can see this link [3]
But this time in Arabic
It's still just a blog page created by yourself! You're not proving any notability, just that you know how to plaster yourself across the internet. W\|/haledad (Talk to me) 20:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Note that the creator (a sock of Nour himself) has even been blocked on Wikidata for severe x-wiki promotion: [4]. W\|/haledad (Talk to me) 23:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete. Cross-wiki spam. hiàn 23:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Matshona Dhliwayo

Contested PROD for lack of notability. — UDScott (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 12:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Opus Dei

I can't find a single sourced quotation in this article. Most quotations have no source. All links I checked are dead. ~ Peter1c (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 18:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)