Jump to content

Wikiquote:Deletion review

Edit links
From Wikiquote

This page is a draft policy on Wikiquote. It is available for consideration by the community, but does not yet reflect community consensus. Editors and sysops may follow the policies proposed here at their own discretion. Please edit this page or make a comment on Wikiquote talk:Deletion review.

Edit +/-

Shortcut

Wikiquote editors may find articles, images, or other pages that they believe should be deleted, and raise these concerns in various deletion forums. Administrators determine consensus and examine policy to decide whether there is sufficient justification for their deletion from Wikiquote.

Wikiquote:Deletion review considers disputed decisions made in Wikiquote:Votes for deletion (and sometimes speedy deletions). This includes appeals to restore pages that have been deleted, as well as to delete pages that were not deleted, after a prior discussion. Before using the Review, please read Wikiquote:Deletion policy and Wikiquote:Undeletion policy.

If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so. It is not necessary to have the original stub undeleted. If, however, the new article is also deleted, you may list it here for a discussion. If you are proposing that a page be reconsidered for deletion, please place the template {{Delrev}} on that page to inform editors who may wish to join the discussion here. If the page has already been deleted, an administator will recreate the page and add {{TempUndelete}}.

Purpose

[edit]
  1. Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or a speedy deletion where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first - courteously invite the admin to take a second look.
  2. Deletion Review is also to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article.
  3. In the most exceptional cases, posting a message to WQ:AN may be more appropriate instead. Rapid corrective action can then be taken if the ensuing discussion makes clear it should be.
Shortcut

This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some information pertaining to the debate that did not receive an airing during the AfD debate (perhaps because the information was not available at that time). This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content.

Instructions

[edit]

Commenting in a deletion review

[edit]

In the deletion review discussion, users should opt to:

  • Endorse the original closing decision; or
  • Relist on Wikiquote:Votes for deletion; or
  • Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action). For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear.

Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum.

Closing reviews

[edit]

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least five days. After five days, an administrator will determine if a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikiquote:Undeletion policy. If the consensus was to relist, the article should be relisted at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.

Archive

[edit]

Archive for this page (find old closed discussions here).

Candidates

[edit]

Infrastructure

[edit]

Infrastructure was deleted on WQ in 2006 (SD: single quote unrelated to subject) by a former WQ-admin. and has not been re-created since. Will an admin please undelete it?

A search on the word Infrastructure comes up with more than 400 search results on WQ.

Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am still waiting for a response for over a year? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't realized you had posted anything here a year ago, but my response now is the same it would have been then: why does this page need to be undeleted? The only quote, as was pointed out, was not truly about the subject. I would recommend that, assuming you have the interest to do so, the page be created again from scratch, as long as there are related and properly sourced quotes available. In other words, I don't believe you really need any action from an admin to get this effort started. On a side noite: if someone posts here, I would recommend a brief note about it at the Admin's noticeboard, as that is a much more frequently viewed page than this one. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Family films

[edit]

Sumit Chowdhury

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.

The result was: original deletion reason obsolete/no consensus. Lapse of time, now moot, non-admin close. --Abd (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Votes for deletion/Sumit Chowdhury was closed and kept as "No consensus to delete." The closer correctly observed that not many votes were cast, but I don't think this gives due consideration to weighing the strength of the arguments and the pertinent policies. Here is a recap of arguments presented in the Vote for Deletion:

  • Arguments to Delete:
  1. The quotations consist entirely of materials taken from advertisements.
  2. The book purportedly being quoted has not been published.
  3. None of this material is quoted by independent sources.
  • Arguments to Keep:
  1. The author is notable.
  2. The article has tones of quotes.
  • Suggestions for Compromise:
  1. Perhaps userfy until existence of the book is verified.
The relevant policies for arguments #1 and #2 are at WQ:NOT#Wikiquote is not a collection of advertisements and WQ:NOT#Wikiquote is not a crystal ball, respectively. Argiment #3 relates to the guideline for Wikiquote:Quotability, which involves weighing multiple considerations.

Argument #4 may be considered in light of the guideline at WQ:Q#Notability is necessary, but not sufficient, for an article on a person. Argument #5 does not pertain to any policies or guidelines I am aware of.

Please note that points #1 and #2, which relate to core policies, were not contested in the discussion. Although there is precedent for quoting advertising materials in limited circumstances with a strong demonstration of quotability (e.g. at Advertising slogans), I would like to emphasize that non-existence of the work purportedly being quoted should be an overriding consideration. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and Delete – Advertising copy should not be posted here without clear evidence of being quoted and discussed in noteworthy independent sources, and I urge the community not to create precedent for citing sources that do not exist. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and userfy - this could have been resolved by not treating it as a binary option. BD2412 T 18:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no objection if a user requests to have this in their userspace temporarily while working on developing it into a suitable article. (I am not sure the original contributor, whose sole activity has been to copy an advertisement here from another site, would be interested in doing this.) However, it should not just be archived indefinitely as a WP:STALEDRAFT if nobody is working on it. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - although I did some initial cleanup on the page, it is clear now that the cited book has yet to be published and it is therefore equally clear that the page should be deleted until such time as the book is published - at which time it can possibly be quoted from. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete (see comment below) - I think we should keep it simple now, and later on and don't accept quotes from (not yet) published works. This work is unverifiable, and if I am not mistaken in The Netherlands not even allowed by law: You are only allowed to quote from work which is published. -- Mdd (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : The circumstances seem to have changed, once more, and the book quoted apparently has now been published, so arguments for its deletion on that point are no longer valid. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 20:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If there is a requirement for proof that quotes from a published work have also been published in independent sources, very many articles would get deleted.--Abramsky (talk) 12:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This in not about independent (secondary) sources, but about the primary source not yet being published, This lemma was created by copy/pasting 99% of the content of a webpage on a book that will be published. Now first of all, this is not fair use. Secondly, the created lemma suggest, that the text are quotes from the book. But since the book is not yet published, it is unverifiable, and I think this is also unacceptable, because all quotes should be verifiable. -- Mdd (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Kalki says that the book is now published.--Abramsky (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, having waited long enough for the advertising prospectus to be fulfilled, his first book was apparently released last week and is listed at amazon.in (but not (yet?) at amazon.com or google books). Argument #1 remains uncontested, that the article is entirely based on advertising copy. The article is an advertisement, showing (apparently, though it has not been verified) the opening paragraph or teaser from each chapter and a promotion by his talent agent. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Action taken: After three months the article is trimmed down to apply to the limit of quotation guideline. The original source is (still) the only available online source, and limits of quotation should be related to that one published source. -- Mdd (talk) 10:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the one remaining quote associated with his new book in the current article revision, it has still not been verified that the quoted text actually appears in the book, as opposed to being a synopsis appearing in an advertisement. Either way, and even with quantitative limits, I do not approve of quoting advertisements like this. I certainly do not approve of including this link to a retail sales site. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : The original article is trimmed down, and other quotes (from more reliable sources) have been found and added to the article. It has become more clear now, that this person is both notable and quotable. -- Mdd (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the other quotes that have been added in the current article revision, I am not seeing the quotability here. The article at InformationWeek is just a puff piece. The foreword to Doing what is right: CRISIL Story was not even written by Chowdhury: this bit of puffery is clearly attributed to Roopa Kudva, Managing Director and CEO of CRISIL.

    I frankly do not understand the impulse to "rescue" an article like this. I myself have rescued articles by finding citations for famous quotes that any general compendium of quotations ought to include (e.g. here), but nothing in this article appears to have stood the test of time as a widely repeated quotation or a notable work. It is puffery, promotion, and unremarkable management babble. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your feedback. The InformationWeek-quote has been removed and the Doing what is right: CRISIL Story-quote has been replaced. As to your "famous quotes of any general compendium of quotations"- argument, Wikiquote has passed this stadium long ago. -- Mdd (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.

Kedar Joshi

[edit]

Overturn: In simple English, anyone quoted in multiple published sources that are independent and reliable is proved quotable (capable or worthy of being quoted or worth quoting); and since he appears quoted in such sources, he appears worth quoting, hence the article. And I doubt it is possible to be simpler. Hinduresci (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arikana Chihombori Quao

[edit]

I just happened to see to see :

Deletion log 17:01 Saroj Uprety talk contribs deleted page Arikana Chihombori Quao ‎(Speedy deletion: Redirect to non-existing page)

on Recent Changes and wonder what the story is. Was the user who created the page notified?

The original page was deleted through the PROD process - it was tagged for the required review period (the reason was that none of the quotes were sourced). When the review period was expired, it was deleted, but this redirect was inadvertently left behind. This was later discovered and deleted as a redirect that then directed users to a non-existing page. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Malone-France

[edit]

Deleted as good faith expired prod "12:06, 17 October 2022 (Proposed deletion: Not sufficiently notable)". I have not seen the article and it is very possible sourced notability of the subject was not represented. I became aware of this on the discussion at User talk:Robin Loup#Derek_Malone-France. The subjects wikidata item, d:Q113803007 contains various indicators of notability, and if insufficient a renaming of the article to focus on the book as the subject. I have not seen the original article but I strongly suspect that with a little tweaking it would have a reaosnable probablity of surviving a VfD. Contestation of that PROD seems reasonable and I would expect that to be honored. However I do accept is is reasonable for the restorer to immediately place the article into the VfD process if they think fit. Thankyou. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 01:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Djm-leighpark: The relevant wikipedia guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and the criteria is :
Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. Academics meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria. The merits of an article on the academic will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable. Before applying these criteria, see the General notes and Specific criteria notes sections, which follow.
  1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
  2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
  3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).
  4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
  5. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.
  6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
  7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
  8. The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.
For this academic, which criteria make him notable to sustain an article on the English Wikipedia? --ᘙ (talk) 10:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ᘙ With respect I'm not interested in that discussion above you've made at the moment. My understanding is this was is recovery of a contested PROD with no discussion and that restoration would be expected to be automatic unless there is a very plain and obvious reason why not. The case for a restore following a VFD discussion would be different and that might involve how the closer interpreted the policy etc. or perhaps that the closer was not aware that the problems raised in the VFD nomination had been addressed. Yes I know your probably sore at what happened at another VFD but that's a different case and you probably didn't make it clear enough to the closer that the problems in the VFD had been addressed and you might claim the closer had done a vote count rather than looking at the associated policy claims. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 12:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UDScott (or any available admin): I believe you were the closer on this PROD and I suppose other admins may prefer you acted on it. It was a good faith PROD at the time and was uncontested. But my understanding on the spirit of WQ:PROD and WQ:Wikiquote:Deletion review and to a degree in line with practice on the English Wikipedia for PRODs is that restoration is to be normally expected on request though my personal option is the restorer is perfectly entitled to raise a VFD as a contested PROD with immediate effect to avoid minimal waste of administrator effort and I have no objection to that in this instance or any other. I realise administrators are busy but I would expect UDScott or another administrator to restore this within 48 hours from now as contributors need to be able to maintain momentum on a subject. Thankyou. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 12:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have undeleted this page, pending further action as part of this deletion review. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added improved sourced representation of notability to the lead section so it is verifiably sourced, there may be debates about the edges of that. I have presented the VIAF ID identity. An associated Wikidata item of significance has been created. There is no associated English Wikipedia article but the standard of presentation and support is now above the minimum that seems required for acceptance here. I have chosen at this point to remove the PROD from the article to avoid accidental re-deletion. From a DRV point of view I see the PROD as a reasonable course of action as the was no reasonable verified representation of nobabilty, neither on the article, particularly the lead section, or the associated Wikidata item. I suggest this PROD is closed and a VFD opened if necessary. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 04:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close: (undelete requestor) to be clear I see close or relist (to VFD) as the appropriate actions following a nontrivial good faith undelete after a prod unless the undelete requestor, upon seeing the undeleted article, requests it deletion. The option remains for the closer, or when this is closed anyone, to list at VFD if they reasonably think fir in good faith. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 05:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Biggest Little Railway in the World

[edit]
  • Contesting PROD of article deleted under PROD process by UDScott under the criteria "Unmemorable quotes", see [1]. Article was created by myself in 2018 under my abandoned account Djm-leighpark. It is not possible for a PROD nominator to be determined once deletion has occurred. I see no evidence of a PROD nomination on the talk page of No evidence of a PROD notification being given on Djm-leighpark's talk/discussion page which would trigger a WikiWide notification of an alert that a PROD nomination had occurred.[2]. An attempt to discuss/contest the deletion on the deleting admin's talk page were simply ignored User_talk:UDScott/2018 part 2#The Biggest Little Railway in the World, albeit enWQ seemed under pressure from vandalism, at the time. in all events as a PROD I expect this to be undeleted without question though a VFD may obviously raised if there are any concerns about Quotability, Notability, etc. Thankyou. -- DeirgeDel tac 10:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deng Feng-Zhou

[edit]

In the previous deletion vote on Chinese Wikipedia, the issue of abusing puppets for advertising was discovered, and relevant pages on English Wikipedia were also deleted.--Newbamboo (talk) 12:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep :Quotes that are beneficial to the world must be kept.

User Newbamboo launched a comprehensive pursuit of many entries related to "Deng Feng-Zhou" because of his personal views, alleging that they were advertisements. As a result, the content of related entries on the Wiki was incomplete, which was really harmful to the Wiki. The items related to "Deng Fengzhou" proposed to be deleted by user Newbamboo include: 1. en.wikipedia: Deng_Feng-Zhou. 2.zh.wikiquote: 鄧豐洲. 3.ja.wikiquote: 鄧豊洲.[1]-- A16898 (talk) 7:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  1. ↑ 維基百科有關鄧豐洲資料遭刪除的項目(English: Wikipedia items about Deng Fengzhou’s information being deleted.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Deletion_review&oldid=3523512"