Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Alice Phoebe Lou


 * 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. --Saroj Uprety (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)'''.

Alice Phoebe Lou
Created by sock User:Anutherconcerned with puppet (per my W:WP:DUCK test assessment) taunting the community here. While per-se there there is nothing wrong with this article there is a question if content provided by block circumventers is allowed to remain or whether content should be reverted. — DeirgeDeltac 07:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Vote closes: 08:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Delete : (nominator). I wish there was an option here like on enWP. for a soft delete.  Page salting may be required as re-creation my a sock is likely. -- DeirgeDeltac 07:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * While I take a right scummer to some details of 's comments of 15:47, 6 March 2023, and also that of others, I am minded between this and one VfD the community is minded to keep content created in violation of blocks. As there is little danger of this article being deleted at VfD I have (relunctly) changed by vote to keep in order this VfD can be concluded as quickly as possible to the community can move on. -- DeirgeDeltac 23:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. While I understand the frustration in dealing with users who manipulate the site, taking this page on its face value, I see nothing to cause it to be deleted. Using the deletion process as retribution for bad behavior to remove legitimate pages just because of who created the page does not seem like something we should promote. I would rather see other avenues used to address the behavior that do not affect whether or not valid content is kept. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @: By saying "Using the deletion process as retribution for bad behavior to remove legitimate pages" you seem to be accusing me of retribution rather than a good faith action in which case blocking me would be in order, there is a custom of reverting block evading edits. However there is an issue that by leaving the page in place block evasion is condoned and supported and seen to be a winning strategy. I do appreciate you been away for a few days and come back into this situation - if you feel a discussion is the correct way to discuss/arbitrate this matter then set it up. -- DeirgeDeltac 17:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The action to delete an otherwise valid page for the sole reason that someone who acted poorly in other situations created it is what appears to have the feel of retribution. My apologies if I sounded accusatory - that was not my intent - rather I was warning against taking such action as it has that appearance. My feeling is that this specific page has nothing really wrong with it and if someone else had created it, there wouldn't even be a discussion. I can see taking other more direct action against someone who evades blocks, but why remove a valid page from the site? ~ UDScott (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You are perhaps going towards possible course of action, which is that the community positively vetting for suitability and neutrality pages created on circumvention of a block. Which is what may happen here may be achieved by this VfD. This is one of a spread of articles created by the sock a proportion of which are legitimate and a proportion of which are POV pushing. But please excuse me for feeling administrators feel are assisting a smelly sock being pushed down my throat, albeit I AGF that is far from their intent and I am merely expressing my feelings. -- DeirgeDeltac 18:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not quite understanding what you are saying in this last post. I am trying to comprehend your views - and believe me, I am not trying to be combative in any way. Are you still pushing for deletion of this page? Or something else? If the former, I would imagine that the page would be immediately recreated (by someone who is not a sock) since the page's subject certainly appears to be notable. If this is the case, then I don't understand the notion of deleting it in the first place (hence my Keep vote above). I'm just not sure the way we should treat contributions by problem users should be treated with a blanket approach (such as removal of all contributions by them, regardless of the value of the pages in question). IMHO, taking direct action (e.g. blocking) on such users is preferable to eliminating good content just because of its genesis. In any case, I've given my vote and will await the conclusion of this process to see where we end up. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @: The result of this VfD will be a precise community decision on how this community wishes to treat this particular article. -- DeirgeDeltac 20:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Deirge why do you refuse to do the opposite of the most basic rules? Be polite; Assume good faith No personal attacks. Clearly you are looking on the dark side and that is sad to see. 184.4.82.218 18:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Specifically Deirge, you are trying to push your POV by censoring perfectly good material - with a lame, ridiculous excuse - which is something you seem to have a habit of doing. Why do you think that's so? 184.4.82.218 18:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * . -- DeirgeDeltac 20:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. I did not read all of the back-and-forth above. My concern is with quotability. These are just (in my opinion) rather banal lyrics; nothing particularly quotable. Of course, in complete candor, I have that same problem with many pages, especially films (where much of what is supplied is not really quotable quotes, but just random snippets of dialogue), but also very minor musical groups. Markjoseph125 (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Deirge - With all due respect, your 'fears' (if you're actually serious & not just saying that, in an attempt to create drama/make trouble) are totally unfounded & ridiculous in my opinion. There is nothing to fear. Thank you! Okthen-trytryagain (talk) 06:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * User blocked per sockpuppetry and unresponsive to related questions. Lemonaka (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per UDScott. --ᘙ (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2023 (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.