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

William J. Casey

The quote in this article is an unsourced rumor circulated solely by conspiracy websites. There is no verified source confirming this quote. As such, this article is nothing but a bit of propaganda for conspiracy theorists and not informative to the general public. Since it is the only quote on the page, I've nominated it for deletion.

Relevant rule: 18:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 19:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete – No citation provided. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Strong Delete – The citation is worthless, and no reliable source exists for this bogosity. (See further comments below.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete in its current form, but as this person is obviously notable, if properly sourced quotes were provided, the page could stay. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, unless properly sourced quotes are provided before the end of this process. BD2412 T 04:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep reliable source provided. Initial ground for nomination seem to be incorrect. According to Google books at least five books mention the quote, see here. -- Mdd (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
    • The citation provided is not a reliable source:  It is an unsourced claim in a self-published work by a non-notable conspiracy theorist. Of the five books identified in the link above, four are from self-published fringe theorists that do not cite their sources, and one is a work of fiction. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Your arguments are solid, yet why withhold this and delete the lemma? This lemma could benefit if the quote should be put in a disputed-section, with a similar argumentation!? -- Mdd (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Definitions of hell in recordings

Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)}}Reopened in response to Risto hot sir for now.--Jusjih (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Similar to the case made in this discussion, this page is outside the scope of this project. — UDScott (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 23:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ UDScott (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Definitions of love in recordings

Similar to the case made in this discussion, this page is outside the scope of this project. And I would delete all such pages, including Definitions of God in recordings, Definitions of death in recordings, Definitions of home in recordings, Definitions of world in recordings, Definitions of life in recordings, Definitions of time in recordings, Definitions of war in recordings, and Definitions of heaven in recordings. — UDScott (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 23:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ UDScott (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. These examples are definitions: "something is something else". You may have heard, that Bob Dylan won the Nobel-prize in literature. "The times they're a-changin'". Also change the definitions of love and these other subjects. Perhaps in near future You can get married with a robot. The musicians are more popular than the writers. If Shakespeare would have written these examples, You wouldn't want to delete them. About 3000 times these sides have been visited. - It's ridiculous, that the English speaking people who are interested in literature in music, must come to Finnish Wikiquote (like with "Words displayed the first time in recordings")! And look at the 10 longest sides in Wikiquote: only Barack Obama -article is of real world; the others include citates of fictional characters. Who has written them? Purely commercial stuff! Why are turtle and Simpson citates more notable than Bob Dylan's ones? -- 23:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC) Sorry, I forgot to log in. So, if these are not worth keeping in en-Wikiquote, I'll copy these sides to fi-Wq. "Words displayed the first time in Finnish records" is the longest side in Suomi-Wikiq, and nobody has wanted to delete it. --Risto hot sir (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC) Found 9 sides of fictional last words. There are these kinds of masterpieces: "Aaaaarghhhh!". What would Oscar Wilde say? Intellectual suicide? If the Wikiquote prefers and tolerates such quotes, it's an honour to get kicked out. --Risto hot sir (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Many famous philosophical sentences are definitions. I think it is good many definitions of love are put together in one place. Everyone can compare them. Writing poetry is often finding new definitions for the things we know so well that we do not think about them. Such lists of definitions can be very interesting for psychologists, too. (Anagram16 (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC))
    In point of fact, most of these are not famous philosophical sentences (or definitions). Those that are were widely quoted long before anyone recorded a song by the same title, by centuries or even, in the case of the Song of Solomon, by millennia. Famous philosophical sentences do belong in Wikiquote, but organizing them by and attributing them to appearances in the titles of recordings is contrary to Wikiquote's emphasis on understanding the origin of a quotation. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
    P.S.  You seem to be arguing that because they are definitions (which most of them are not) they are somehow inherently quoteworthy. This does not follow:  "Many famous philosophical sentences are definitions" is true enough; but the converse, that definitions are therefore famous philosophical sentences, is not. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all. These pages are outside the scope of this project:  Cataloging the titles of recorded songs containing the word is reflects a misunderstanding of what is meant by a collection of notable quotations (and of what is meant by the word definition). ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; these are not really quotes; also, the article title is misleading, as there is clear confusion between "definitions" and "descriptions". See wikt:love for actual definitions. BD2412 T 14:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, let's change the word 'definition' to 'description'! --Risto hot sir (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC) The question "why are the last words of fictional characters so important that they should exist in Wikiquote" is still unanswered. And what exactly is the scope of this project? Wikiquotes of other languages seem to have different scopes. --Risto hot sir (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Generally speaking, last words are complete quotes - that is, you could quote the statement as a whole, not as a fragment of a sentence. With respect to these "definitions" (or "descriptions") of love, if they are quotable, then the sentence containing the quote would be in the article, Love. BD2412 T 20:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Perhaps so, but doesn't the Stones' "Love is strong" tell more about love's nature than all the fictional characters together? I see that en-Wikiquote wants more to entertain than make people to think. --Risto hot sir (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
        • This page doesn't even say "Love is strong"; it merely says "strong". If "Love is strong" is an informative quote about love, then it should be in Love. These "Definitions of" pages could basically just be titled "Lists of random words". BD2412 T 04:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
          • It would be boring to write all the songs begin "Love is". These words are mentioned above. -- 09:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
            • The idea of Wikiquote is to collect carefully SELECTED sentences. Now the trend seems to be to write everything said in animations and soap operas. Their place is in Wikisource. Am I wrong? --Risto hot sir (talk) 10:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Still no answers! The reason might be, that the Wikiquote already has lost the battle: it would take too much work to clean all the so called "quotations". But other languages' Wikiquotes can regard this as a warning example. --Risto hot sir (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
              • "Love is ... strong" is something that even an inarticulate 5 year old could say. Hardly very thoughtful. And all of your "quotations" are unsourced (a date alone is not enough). ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
                Very many sources said "Love is strong" long before anyone used it as a song title, long before the phonograph was even invented. A lot of sources over the centuries expressly cite or allude to Song of Solomon 8:6, but it may well predate the invention of writing for the reason DanielTom indicates. Attributing it to The Rolling Stones is ludicrous. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
                • "Love is strong" is only one example. There are many others that 5 years olds can't say. I think Mick Jagger has written good texts. Are the endless conversations between Shrek and an animated donkey thoughtful? Must I really seek the record companies and so on? Just google "Fono" and You can check the songs from a database. You see only trees, not the forest. --Risto hot sir (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
                  • 1) W:WP:OSE. 2) Yes, full citations are required. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
                    • This is not so important to me, that I would do that kind of hard work. The material can be found elsewhere. --Risto hot sir (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
                      Up to you. My point is that any article with no sourced quotes will eventually be deleted. Don't take it personally. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
                      • When selecting quotations we should consider their notability: can they be used in books, newspapers etc. Animated characters hardly reach this criteria. Now the Wikiquote is like a shack full of hay, and it's difficult to find the golden needles. What's Your opinion? I'm afraid no answers will be seen - that has happened before with English, Simple English and Swedish palindrome sites. Silence is golden? --Risto hot sir (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -- Mdd (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
    • That's not an argumented opinion! --Risto hot sir (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC) In fi-Wikiquote is a conversation going on, about Kalevala - which J. R. R. Tolkien found very interesting. The whole Kalevala can be read in Wikisource, so why should parts of it exist in Quote? On OTHER sites good Kalevala-quotations are of course welcome. --Risto hot sir (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC) I consider this side as a project: everyone can add the sources and correct the years, they can be years when recorded or published. I heard that every day about 10 000 new songs are being available, so help is needed! --Risto hot sir (talk) 08:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC) The last vote came too late. Where's the "Definitions of hell in recordings" now? Also "To be or not not be" has surely been said long before Shakespeare, but it's the first documented sentence. That's the same with recordings. --Risto hot sir (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Michael Totten

The article was proposed for deletion with the reason:

Article should be recreated from scratch because it is created from start with disrespect of the WQ:LOQ : Several sections are over 250/275 words length, but even worse several sections seem to contain almost the full text of the source, which as far as I know, is not allowed according to fair use policy. The total disrespect towards the continuing existence of this kind of quotes, the lack of any response or any action is unacceptable. -- Mdd (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Now the prod-nomination was removed this morning 03:48, January 25, 2017 by Illegitimate Barrister with the comment i will try to trim some sections. Next in two hours more than 50 edits are made, while the article length stayed the same.

This kind of (feint??) action can not solve the problem here, that this article is build on copyright violations. This started the first day, 11 december 2015, with the 6th (of the 395) edit where a 1100 word blog post was completely copy/pasted here, see [1]. Later at least 5 or more of sections seem to contain more than 50% of the blog-posts. This kind of article history is unacceptable, and there is one simple solution: Recreate from scratch respecting WQ:LOQ. — Mdd (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 15:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: I'm currently in the process of trimming the article down. If you're worried about past revisions containing copyrighted material, as an admin/sysop you can make them inaccessible. That's what happened with this page. – Illegitimate Barrister (talkcontribs) 02:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Length of quotes Inappropriately lengthy quotes will be trimmed or discarded, with a maximum of 250 words per quote...
Spoken-word (speeches, standup comedy, interviews, etc.) Five quotes maximum for any work not in the public domain.
Books A recommended maximum of five lines of prose or eight lines of poetry for every ten pages of a book not in the public domain. This is equal to about 1.25% of the total content of a book.
Also there are more general guidelines in Wikiquote:What Wikiquote is not such as Wikiquote is not a textbook, Wikiquote is not a place for public domain documents, Wikiquote is not a personal website, Wikiquote is not a collection of your personal quotes. And there are Fair use guidelines, such as the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. The main problem here is, that the lemma from scratch is not in line with the specific WQ:LOQ guidelines, several of the general guidelines, and the fair use guideline.
There is a simple two-step solution here:
  1. Adopt and apply a fair interpretation of WQ:LOQ guidelines. For example with a 1100 words blog-post: don't quote more then 250 words in maximum five quotes. Then about 20% of the text is quoted.
  2. Solve the problems in the lemma (where you are practically the sole contributor) in four steps: Move the article to the sub-userspace User:Illegitimate Barrister/Michael Totten; delete the redirect; trim the larger sections from blogspost under 250 words; and copy-paste it back to the Michael Totten lemma.
Now in the example you gave of Nguyen Khanh first 43 good edits were made, and the next 34 edits contained copyright violations. In this case (with 5 good edits and 390 contained copyright violations, and you practically being the sole contributor), recreations is fair solution. -- Mdd (talk) 12:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I've managed to reduce the size of the article by almost 10,000 bytes thus far. – Illegitimate Barrister (talkcontribs) 08:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Just as in the Nguyen Khanh lemma (where Illegitimate Barrister referred to in his first comment) I labeled the lemma as {{copyvio}}, because at least 7 sections (with 500 to over 1000 words) still contain more than 50 to 80% of the original blog-posts of (1000 to 2000 words). On the Nguyen Khanh lemma, see Talk:Nguyen Khanh, a really-trimmed version was proposed, and I hope this is possible here as well. -- Mdd (talk) 12:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Mdd: Illegitimate Barrister's only concern seems to be his own edit count. I think the solution may be to impose a limit and only allow him to add quotes that are actually quoted in secondary sources, not stuff he reads in blogs and then imports wholesale to Wikiquote. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep only if the page can be brought into copyright compliance. Totten seems like a notable and interesting person. But the page was a mess--very off-putting. I'd say remove anything from blog posts, and limit it to published pieces. But short pieces should have just a short quote. You provide the link so interested readers can go read the whole thing (don't provide that here). DougHill (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. In cases of egregious copyright violation, the best course of action is blow it up and start over. Comparing the above mentioned proportions to our unofficial guideline of 1¼% for written works, an excess of more than an order of magnitude is clearly egregious. (The article creator does not appear to recognize the magnitude of the problem:  More than 200 edits "trimming" the article over the course of a week, between the time it was first {{prod}} and the time it was blanked as a {{copyvio}}, reduced its size by a mere 10%. Mass quantities of pointless edits like these insult the intelligence of those who raise legitimate issues here.)

    The massive bloat in this article also displayed a complete disregard for principles of Wikiquote:Quotability. As I wrote in endorsing the original proposal to delete, "This is not WikiReblog or a mirror site." ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Russell Peters

Restarted with excessive questionable quotes before mass blanking — Jusjih (talk) 03:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 04:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete.--Jusjih (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. before the page was blanked, the quotes were unsourced. But worse, half of the text or more seem to have been copy-pasted from this webpage (which seems to be a mirror-site, and the original seem to be gone) . -- Mdd (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


Copyright concerns raised June 25, 2016, but not resolved. — Mdd (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 16:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Hypothetically if one contained every example of a particular words usage in notable texts throughout antiquity, it would include these quotes with several in between them as I attempted to add. Presentation copyright is a nebulous term, and were we to use the same images there would be a case for it. Simply using the same sources as someone is not a violation therefore the issue must be that the excerpts are the same, which can be remedied by lengthening or shortening them to the sentences containing the individual words. Kalki however recently helped me by expanding a one line quote from proverbs which has me thinking perhaps a sentence or two that doesn't directly mention the word could be of use for establishing context. Were this done, the presentations of the two references would differ on every quote between wikiquote and the good professors website. If need be I can simply cut all the quotes down to one liners for the time being and that will I believe definitively settle the issue will it not? If not wouldn't a work that used every possible reference be a violation of all works using any of those references? I respectfully abstain from voting. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


An obscure DC comics character less notable than Aquaman, Captain Marvel, Catwoman or Two Face or a dozen more published comic book characters, none of whom havepages (though I'm not opposed). I'm surprised Ninguable bothered to categorize this and point out it was referenced in 2008 and 2010; this page has multiple problems. CensoredScribe (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 02:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


None of the other more notable X-Men have their own pages, and these quotes aren't memorable. An about section or quotes from the comics also seem like unlikely future additions. — CensoredScribe (talk) 05:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 06:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete; any notable quotes should be on the pages of the individual works. BD2412 T 04:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


An obscure DC comics character with a narrow number of appearance to draw quotes from, none of which seem particularly memorable and require too much context. — CensoredScribe (talk) 06:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 07:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Jamie McCrimmon

Obscure Doctor Who character. The author has not added citations or proper formatting over the last year and I think UDScott had the right idea with a redirect, considering that's what Kirk and Spock are. — CensoredScribe (talk) 06:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 07:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)