Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/FakeWikipedia



Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate a page for deletion, you must manually edit the VfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination). When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was: no consensus. This discussion has become too convoluted to derive an actionable consensus. BD2412 T 02:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

FakeWikipedia
Fake Wikipedia articles where one-sided opinions are presented as facts. Blocked POV-pushing editors created all these. Not one notable quote among them, nor is there likely to be on these topics. — HouseOfChange (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Vote closes: 23:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The socks created some articles that can be rescued by adding good quotes. But these "fake Wikipedia articles," we should delete, because the topics are not suited to Wikiquote:


 * United States embargo against Cuba created by GaneshaSis
 * United States sanctions created by GaneshaSis
 * Information Warfare Community created by Alphabravo2022
 * USS Liberty incident created by Will-SeymoreIII

Blocked user Om777om has not been shown by Checkuser to be the same as the socks above, but he created 3 articles in this category that were later edited by the socks.


 * H.R. 40 - Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act created by Om777om
 * Anti-Russian sentiment created by Om777om
 * Crimes Against Humanity Initiative created by Om777om

I apologize in advance if I'm not making this complex suggestion correctly. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, delete them all. Keep, improve, de-POV, and thank everyone who helps - I think doing these as a group is the best way to handle this problem. Antandrus (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Update: I've changed my mind on this, especially seeing the work User:HouseOfChange has been doing recently. It's a heavy lift, removing the coatracking and gross NPOV violations with which these pages are riddled, but ultimately I think Wikiquote will be better off this way. In the meantime we have some "OMG THE US IS AWFULLEST BULLY ON EARTH" propaganda spews, but they will eventually be fixed. "Eventualism" is, after all, an ancient wiki philosophy and I see its reasonableness here.
 * Bigger issues, outside of the scope of this discussion, are - it's a little too easy to push POV on Wikiquote just by selection of quotes of, say, just one extremist position. I think the WQ:NPOV policy itself could use a little expansion. But that's another discussion. Antandrus (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I don't want to remove the nomination until these articles get fixed. Finding a wider range of quotes is the fun part of this. Less fun is trying to find a quotable, on-topic quote in paragraphs of COATRACK. The sockpuppet's use of bolding and image boxes to promote only one POV is easy to spot. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * I am not familiar with the term Fake Wikipedia articles
 * To my knowledge we do not delete pages because "the topics are not suited to Wikiquote"
 * Comment: I doubt anyone will check carefully all the articles the OP has suggested in one swift stroke of the keyboard, but hope the deleting admin will Ottawahitech (talk) 04:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Real Wikipedia articles achieve NPOV by relying on fact-checked RS before making assertions. These articles use quote selection, images, and bolding to imply that one point of view is endorsed by wikivoice. I have spent hours trying to improve other "sock" articles, where the topic is deep enough to inspire notable quotes. Wikiquote has an article on Crimes against humanity, it doesn't need one for Crimes Against Humanity Initiative . And so on. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep United States embargo against Cuba, a notable topic that can likely be improved by adding quotes reflecting other perspectives; delete the rest, as the topics covered are on a smaller scale or are less cohesive as topics. BD2412 T 07:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Some may want to consider that this particular page has clearly had significantly more interest than the others, as reflected below:  1) Information Warfare Community, Created 8 Apr 2022, total pageviews: 450; 17 days; Avg pageviews per day: 26 The topic is extremely relevant to the current events, as nearly everyone witnesses the actions of this group, once known as the "Information Dominance Corps". ~anon 24.214.70.31 22:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Please keep "United States embargo against Cuba." Changes to grammar, spelling, etc. of course. But Wikipedia should stay out of US politics. This is an informative article. This article helps reduce the huge amount of ignorance among Americans, and perhaps others, about US-Cuban relations. It shows the relevant pros and cons. To remove this article would be an affirmative assistance to the anti-Cuba forces which base their success at dictating US policy on keeping Americans uninformed, and therefore easily mislead. DrWJK (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We aren’t here to help nor hinder anyone, but your case is otherwise reasonable. Dronebogus (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment, I removed from this list one long article that I believe contains useful and good material we should retain: H.R. 40 - Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act. I nominated it because I thought that our article on the more general topic Reparations could be used to save any useful contents there. But in retrospect, that specific collection would be a useful resource and should be kept. My apologies for being too hasty. I am also removing the US embargo article in deference to the suggestion of . HouseOfChange (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose I object to this, because it is too vaguely worded. How do you even define a "fake Wikipedia article"? --Spafky (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "Fake Wikipedia" is a descriptor I made up on the spot when trying to explain why these articles shared a common problem: quotes all so POV they ended up sounding like undisputed facts about each topic. I spent many hours trimming and balancing other articles created by the LibraryClerk191 sockpuppets, but these seemed to me topics where it would be hard to find notable "quotable" quotes. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Information Warfare Community, and Crimes Against Humanity Initiative, both simply not very notable or quotable. Keep USS Liberty incident, notable quotes exist and it’s generally a notable incident; criticism of the official accounts isn’t some random fringe opinion even if most of the quotes are/were from an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist (broken clocks are right twice a day, yada yada). Delete Anti-Russian sentiment, at least for now; POV-fork invasion apologist magnet. Neutral on United States sanctions, it’s a notable topic but I’m worried it’s too much of a POV fork. Dronebogus (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: (all remaining): In essence all are notable. I do have concerns on the presented Quotability on some and many may need a cleanup on an individual basis.  There may need to be NPOV tags on some.  No objection to a re-nom in after an interval but I'd suggest not bundling unless its useful to do so for a group of two or three. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 09:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: USS Liberty incident, and United States sanctions: The sanctions article is already well-populated, though the Liberty article needs more quotes from survivors. The Anti-Russian sentiment article needs a couple of non-sequitur quotes, which are unrelated to the subject and included speciously and with an obvious agenda, such as Smedley Butler's "War is a racket", removed. --Harry Sibelius (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Update I am going to undertake the longer, more difficult path of trying to improve articles. Starting with Anti-Russian sentiment, which interestingly still contains not one single example of an anti-Russian statement by anyone. I think adding some material from Zbigniew Brzezinski, famous for his anti-Russian statements, should add some context. I also trimmed or removed a ton of POV-pushing about NATO and Ukraine that did not directly reference anti-Russian sentiment. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC) Later: I removed Anti-Russian sentiment from this nomination, because I have done the work to turn it into a useful and on-topic article. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:28, 29 April 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.