Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikiquote

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 all. No point in letting this run on - there's only going to be one end result. Relisting individually is at editor discretion, but I would suggest not blindly relisting them, because it is clear from the consensus below that most are not candidates from deletion. Daniel Bryant 06:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquote

Wikiquote (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Not notable website. No reliable sources provided. DXRAW 06:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason above:

Wikiversity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikinews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikimedia Commons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikisource (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikijunior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikibooks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wiktionary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Er, I don't think you did your research on these. I can find multiple for these two, and I haven't enough time to look for the others.
  • Wikinews
    1. Wired
    2. NYT
    3. Cyberjournalist.net
    4. Journalism.co.uk
  • Wikiquote
    1. UBuffalo Newspaper [1]
    2. UBuffalo Newspaper [2]
    3. Mathematos Article [3]
  • Wikisource
• So, Keep on these two, and Delete on the others, unless someone comes up with some WP:RS. It shouldn't be that hard - just exclude Wikimedia, and their mirrors, in a google search with "-site:XXXX". --Haemo 07:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep
  • Wikinews sources: CNet Businessweek NYT.
  • Commons: O'Reilly.
  • WikiBooks: Guardian Free Software Magazine ariadne.ac.uk.
• All have scholarly articles at http://scholar.google.com/ --h2g2bob 07:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I didn't realize that Google Scholar results were not apparent from a standard Google search - thanks for pointing this out. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with the above. It's reasonably obvious that no research at all has gone into this nomination, such as an attempt to find reliable sources, as required by our Wikipedia:Deletion policy and recommended by the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination. Such sources exist. Wikinews, for example, has a whole list of reliable sources that have written about Wikinews, over a period of three years, many of which one can find handily collected at n:Wikinews:In the news. One doesn't even need to make the tiny effort of using Google to look for them. This is a very poor nomination indeed. Uncle G 10:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It gets worse. I mention to DXRAW (talk · contribs) that xe omitted Wiktionary and that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wiktionary there is a comment that nominations such as these are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point (a guideline that xe disagrees with) and xe then promptly adds it to this list. This sort of response, and the addition of Wiktionary to a nomination stating that there are no reliable sources cited in the article, in the face of the citations in the article of sources such as The New Yorker, is clear evidence that the rationale stated is not the real reason for nomination. (That sources are not cited by an article is not the same as sources not existing at all, and is not grounds for deletion, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy.) These edits, to me, indicate that this is not a simple misunderstanding of policy or lack of knowledge of policy, but that in fact this editor is not nominating articles in good faith and is deliberately contravening a guideline not to be disruptive. I therefore issue one of my exceedingly rare speedy keeps. Uncle G 12:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep All This is not a well considered proposal. Per results above. See also the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikiversity (3rd nomination) less than a month ago with a result of keep.--mikeu 11:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep All per above. Badly thought out nomination with previous consensus to keep. Hut 8.5 11:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Are you missing the fact that there is no WP:RS DXRAW 11:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment as has been noted above, there obviously are. If the article doesn't cite any, that doesn't mean none exist. Of course they should be added, but that's not a reason to delete the article. Hut 8.5 12:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all <sigh> Wikiversity sources at: [4], [5], [6], [7] ... Cormaggio ^{is learning} 11:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep All - seems a poorly thought out nomination, all satisfy notability criteria. Adambro 12:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Wikinews. I've taken two of the citations above and incorporated them into the article - this satisfies the requirement for reliable sources for this article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. It is my opinion that this AfD should be speedy closed as a bad faith nomination. However, I decline to close it as such myself. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Wikiquote. I've added the one valid citation of the three listed above to the article (one was a reprint of the other and the third is a blog). This is a 'weak citation', though, in that it is from a university library newsletter. However, the vast majority of Google hits against Wikiquote are where sites (including news organizations) have used Wikiquote content to embellish their copy. The question arises about whether use of content constitutes demonstration of notability or not. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I feel it does, significant use of Wikiquote content can be seen as recognition of the sites importance. Adambro 12:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Wiktionary. There are a couple of 'reliable source' citations present; I've templated the reference to The New Yorker, so that it now appears in the references list. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep All have multiple independent reliable sources with substantial coverage. Edison 13:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I think these articles are all useful parts of the encyclopedia and should be kept. An alternative it to turn these pages into redirects linking to sections for each project at Wikimedia Foundation. --JWSchmidt 14:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and close. Edison has it right. That, and it's just a little too early for April Fools Day 2008. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- notable websites, with reliable sources and references Thunderwing 15:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• This is basically a nomination to remove all articles on Wikimedia projects. Not only is this patently ridiculous, and not only do these articles have dozens of parallel translations in other languages, but this is a larger policy question that should not be decided by simply tacking an AfD notice on the articles in question. For Wikisource there wasn't even a comment on the talk page. I'm removing the notice. Dovi 17:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC) PS Danny Wool on Wikisource, as per JWSchmidt above.
• Comment - Wikimedia commons is a non notable website? April 1 was two weeks ago. Want to nominate Google for deletion as well? - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Google has WP:RS while commons does not. DXRAW 21:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep All I think they are all notable as they are part of Wikimedia, which does provides us with Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a notable website and so are its siblings. KeepOnTruckin ^{Complain to me | my work here} 20:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep All All of these projects have been mentioned in many news articles and many (all?) have been/are the focus of scholarly research. --Cspurrier 21:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all nomination is a joke. JuJube 21:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep All per WP:SNOW; I like to assume good faith, but in this case I have to assume that this is a bad faith nomination that violates WP:POINT, and is actually vandalism in and of itself; In addition, I'd suggest this user needs to be watched as there may be additional potential vandalism from this user in the future. --Mhking 22:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This page is often misused, People will often link to the shortcut WP:POINT when people are making their point in a non-disruptive way, such as a single nomination of a similar article after an AFD they disagreed with closed, or starting a discussion on the village pump, etc. The idea that these actions are disruptive is not supported by this guideline. DXRAW 22:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment You have made a patently absurd nomination at AfD. That qualifies as disruptive behavior under WP:POINT bordering on blatant vandalism. I would support restricting your editing activity over this. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment You need to see that peoples options differ, I don't see it is "patently absurd" DXRAW 22:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Your knowledge of WP and the related Wikipedia sites demonstrates your knowledge of the way things are here. In addition, your nomination of those core sites appears to be meant to disrupt things here. As I prefaced initially, I'd like to assume good faith, but there is nothing in this nomination that allows me to see any good faith to begin with. If I am missing something, I'd be happy to look at it, but I can only assume at this juncture that you are trying to disrupt things to make some sort of point. What point? I cannot discern any. And in relation to your comments to me, your actions have only served to reinforce my thoughts. --Mhking 22:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

  Comment I'd add that DXRAW also has a history of attempting to use Wikipedia guidelines to bully people who make edits he/she doesn't agree with (eg, labeling such edits 'vandalism' and placing a warning template on the person's talk page - typically without any kind of justification of the warning beyond citing some guideline (see [8] and [9]) and seems to frequently cast one word votes in straw polls and ignores requests to justify his/her vote. --Nick Dowling 08:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  Comment My recommendation to User:DXRAW is to assess and accept the consensus here and withdraw the nominations. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to withdraw the nominations due to gross volitions of WP:AGF DXRAW 22:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Then can you at least provide some rationale for why you nominated these? Either you did no research, which is prohibited, or you didn't do your research well enough. Either way, you either made a mistake, or did something wrong, and should voluntarily close this AfD. It's not contrary to WP:AGF to request that people support their reasons for deletion when they appear fallacious. --Haemo 23:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

AGF policy states: Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. Editors should not accuse the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith in the absence of reasonable supporting evidence.

Also, to say that you won't withdraw a clearly inappropriate nomination due to WP:AGF (i.e. nothing to do with the validity of the nomination itself) is a clear violation of WP:POINT. --Chriswaterguy talk 04:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Well its ok, he doesnt need to withdraw it, an andministrator will come along and see the consensus and close this AFD. Meanwhile, User:DXRAW I suggest seriously, not sarcastically, to you to nominate also the encyclopedic page Wikipedia for deletion. That may get some serious attention from administrators. KeepOnTruckin ^{Complain to me | my work here} 00:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep All This is a joke, right? Just being Wikipedia's sister projects should make it notable enough, and there have definitely been enough sources given to prove it. --LuigiManiac 00:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Another Comment THe nominator's reasons for deletion were "Not notable website. No reliable sources provided." As it states on the AFD page, "not notable" is not a criterion for deletion. Also, the deletion policy page states that you must check for sources before nominating an article for AFD. THe nominator here made no obvious attempt to do that. Thus, the nomination has no basis. KeepOnTruckin ^{Complain to me | my work here} 00:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Query comment Could you clarify that ... "not notable is not a criterion for deletion"? Not meeting notability criteria is among the most common reasons an article is deleted on Wikipedia. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well maybe it was an essay off of the AFD page, however I remember stating in another AFD i discussed that "non notable is not a criterion for deletion" was on teh AFD page. Maybe it has been changed. Oh here it is, WP:JNN. KeepOnTruckin ^{Complain to me | my work here} 01:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Good page to take a look at, thanks. However, this doesn't apply in the present case; a reason was given: no reliable sources. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Continued comment Well yes, but "no reliable sources" isn't a valid reason for deltetion. A person wanting to put an article up for AFD for that reason must first search for sources, and then if none are found it can be put up on AFD. AND it isnt even applicable in this case as some have been added. KeepOnTruckin ^{Complain to me | my work here} 15:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep; an obvious joke, and a bad one at that. --KaufmanIsAwesome 01:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep! They seem inportant enough to be in an encyclopedia. Many other websites have an entry, so what wrong with these wikis? And I'm thinking that they were nominated together with each other because of.. Discrimination?
• Speedy keep all and close Per above comments, these are all notable Brian | (Talk) 03:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP Why are these even up for deletion? They're all notable things in the Wikimedia project. If Wikipedia doesn't have articles on these things, then it's sort of pointless.--十八 09:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep all. Relist individually after sufficient due diligence has been conducted that the nom is satisfied that an article really truly should be deleted according to our deletion criteria. John Vandenberg 09:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and a giant procedural knockout. The nom clearly failed to do even rudimentary source checks and improve the articles with whatever resources there are, and the preferred way of dealing with this sort of stuff is to add the sources first. Nominating stuff on AfD to get sources to articles just makes people annoyed later. Basically, this is a blanket nomination for a bunch of articles with "no sources" as the sole complaint, which lead to... um, a bunch of sources discovered. Not exactly how AfD was meant to really work on day-to-day basis, now is it? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep These sister projects are certainly notable, and it's useful and interesting to be able to find information about them. ElinorD (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per all Will ^{(I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!)} 20:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep For sure! --Defender 911 21:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep with some choice words for User:DXRAW. Shouldn't this be closed by now? --Bejnar 04:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Appears to be frivolous, at best. Snowball this, please! --Chriswaterguy talk 04:23, 23 April 2007 (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.