Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War 3rd

It is clear from the discussion that we do not want to delete. However, there is concern about its steady growth and numerous IP edits. I have reverted to the last version by Kalki (all subsequent edits were by IPs) and semi-protected for 7 days. Other registered users are welcome to revert to a different version or make their own edits.-- Poetlister 12:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War
Again the article size is growing mainly by anon edits ... now it reaches 12KB. Not as bad as before but already full of "unpithy quotes". As said before, I think we cannot retain it here on Wikiquote, since the contributors to this article have no intention to share our concerns and respect to our policies and guidelines.--Aphaia 15:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 16:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Links to previous AfDs: --Cato 23:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm being inconsistent in that I previously voted to delete. However, there is clearly much demand for this article.  To avoid it getting out of hand, we need to revert to an acceptable version and possibly have an indefinite semi-protect.--Cato 23:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, I think it just needs some editing and grammar corrections.. ~ LoktheNomad 24:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As of yet there is no user . This signature was forged. --Aphaia 11:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I looked through this and found there were a lot of things I liked -- certainly better than the normal game far (see next entry). Let's do what Cato suggests. -- Ubiquity 03:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, but it definitely needs to be reined in and watched. ~ UDScott 14:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Abstain There is potential for a reasonable article here, but it will need perpetual monitoring, which is a nuisance.--Yehudi 18:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Cato --McNoddy 10:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those links, Cato.
 * Okay it seems to become a snowball keep. I'd however like you to recall a proposal which came from an editor who were active on this article. He suggested to delete earlier revisions than a "good edition" to prevent anyone to restore the content. How do you think about this proposal? Also now not only anons but also registered users are active on this article, I am not sure semiprotection solves this issue. --Aphaia 11:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't we semiprotect, and then send a note to the 10 registered users who have contributed in the last year? Some of them have already demonstrated that they understand the issue. I think if we explained it to the others, we might at least wind up with more editors in favor of a nicely trimmed page than those who want to enlarge it to contain everything (and hence risk its deletion). I'll volunteer to write and send the note, if that's what we decide to do. As for deleting earlier unacceptable revisions, I think that would be fine.--Ubiquity 13:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)