Wikiquote talk:Votes for deletion

Deletion pursuant to specially named discussions
Note to closers: When deleting an article pursuant to VfD, the convenient "Reason for deletion" feature works well when the name of the discussion page is the same as the name of the page discussed. However, when the names are different, as commonly happens for group nominations and repeat nominations, it results in a redlink or an incorrect link to a prior discussion. Therefore, in order to make the deletion log accurate and useful, please check whether the names are different and, if so, use the "Other reason" option to manually link the specific discussion pursuant to which the article is being deleted. Thanks. ~ Ningauble 15:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been in this situation before while closing VfDs, and it won't be helpful at all if the deletion summary for the VfD was a redlink leading nowhere or a link to an incorrect page. This leaves the user questioning why the article was deleted, which we should try to avoid. I'll be sure to keep an eye out for these types of VfDs, and will be sure to manually input the link to the correct VfD page when deleting one when it ever happens again. Thanks. &mdash; RyanCross (talk ) 21:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Note also: The same considerations apply to deletion of non-article pages, such as those in the Category:, Template:, and Wikiquote: name spaces, because the automated summary uses the page name without prefix. ~ Ningauble 15:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

By the year 2010 how many articles are going to be voted for deletion? 10? 20? 30? 40?(StarWarsFanBoy 02:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC))

Deletion candidates
The candidates Hiromu Arakawa, Money as debt and Ahmet çakar are closed. Shouldn't anyone remove those closed Candidates and replace them with new opened up candidates? Also when where will be more VFDs to open up? I only come to this website to make sure the website gets cleaned up by making sure Only the bad pages gets deleted by my votes.(StarWarsFanBoy 02:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC))

Name of this page
I may sound stupid, but I have a question. Why is this page called "Votes" for deletion when the first sentence states "Votes for deletion is the process where the community discusses whether a page should be deleted or not, depending on the consensus of the discussion." Surely, if we are trying to get consensus, it shouldn't be called a "vote"... in my opinion "Requests for deletion" or something of that sort be a better title. Pmlineditor    ∞    15:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, they long ago changed it to "Articles for Deletion". I'm not saying we necessarily should follow suit, but it's an option. BD2412 T 17:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I recall, it hasn't been an issue here, but I agree it may sound contradiction. I'm not sure if we are pressed by an urgent need to rename, but it is an option. --Aphaia 22:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I support the not just a vote approach, and the language about "a variety of factors, including (besides the votes) policies, practices, precedents, arguments, compromises between conflicting positions, and seriousness of the participants." It might be a good idea to highlight this in the lede section. Still, I don't think the name is much of a problem, especially in relation to the work that would be involved in moving or integrating the old "new" naming system (circa 2006–7) for discussions and archives. ~ Ningauble 14:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No objections to a possible name change to something else. -- Cirt (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mind how the name of this page currently is, but sure, I can see how "Votes" wouldn't be the best name for a discussion that centers on reaching consensus. The English Wikipedia uses "Articles for Deletion" as it is such a large wiki, they need deletion pages for nearly every namespace from article, user, template, etc.. Here on English Wikiquote, we use our Votes for Deletion for any page in any namespace in the wiki, so "Requests for Deletion", in my opinion, would be the best name... but again, if we do decide to rename, like Ningauble said, we'd have to rename past archives and discussions which may take a while... &mdash; RyanCross (talk ) 17:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's a crazy idea... why not take this page to WQ:VFD for rename? &mdash; RyanCross  (talk ) 17:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Because we aren't seeking to delete this page, merely to rename it. I like "Requests for Deletion" also. I think renaming archives and so forth would be a mere hiccup. BD2412 T 23:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Requests for Deletion", that sounds fine and dandy. -- Cirt (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * To add my opinion (over a year late), I believe the change to RFD would be a good change, at least interm. Steps must be taken to improve the system, regardless of how short they are, or how many more must be taken after the first, second, or third...!
 * Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 23:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I also support changing the name of VfD to "Requests for Deletion". ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The comparison with Wikipedia is not apt, as they have many different pages, such as CfD (where D means discussion not deletion), IfD and MfD as well as AfD. I think that to some extent there is a vote, since one or two discussions are by no means unanimous.--Abramsky (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)