Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikiquote (2nd nomination)


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikiquote
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:WEBCRIT. I have searched for sources in news websites, Google Books, Google Scholars and JSTOR. The only independent source of significant coverage I found was this. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ---  C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ---  C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ---  C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ---  C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect to WMF or somewhere else suitable It strikes me as odd to nominate a WMF project on here for some reason; nevertheless, that is not itself a reason to keep unlike what some said in the 1st AfD, and I didn't see anything non-WMF related in the first page of a GSearch. The sources given for its notability the first time around are this twice and this, the latter which seems like a blog. I don't think this passes muster for notability, but should be kept as a redirect. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I was surprised to find that there are so few good sources for this project. I ran a search on LexisNexis and the best thing I could find was a brief paragraph about Wikiquote in a German article about the WMF hiring a new CEO (the title is misleading): Ferenc Reinke (8 May 2014). Hier finden Sie die besten Zitate von Promis; Auf Wikiquote gibt's zu jedem Thema etwas. Berliner Kurier. There is coverage in some instructional books on the Internet Archive: How Wikipedia Works (p. 454) Wikipedia Reader's Guide (p. 22) - the coverage in How Wikipedia Works is fairly substantial, but the book was written by people affiliated with the WMF, so is it really an independent source? It is difficult to search for sources because so many articles simply cite Wikiquote or refer to it in passing among other projects, so maybe other people will be able to find more... SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There are some sources about an incident in which fake quotes posted on the website lost Rush Limbaugh a business deal, e.g. The Most Dangerous Man in America: Rush Limbaugh's Assault on Reason (p. 11), (23 Nov 2009) Rush Limbaugh lost his bid to be part-owner of the St. Louis Rams. National Review, David Warren (17 Oct 2009) The Wisdom of Crowds. Ottawa Citizen , but these sources don't discuss the actual website in any depth. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: When google "Wikiquote" gives me 7.5 million hits and scholar 5,400 exc patents/citations WP:COMMONSENSE tells me deletion is likely not a good choice and its hard to all those for being useless.  covers is for me and can anyone tell me if  is any good?  + those above.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "Wikiquote" only has ~43 hits on Google Search and ~6 hits on Google Patents. The first link you shared only says Kizu Naoko: ..."I’m a sysop on several WMF projects, including the Japanese Wikiquote, the English Wikiquote.". The second link, by my count, only has about 2 or 3 usable claims directly about the website but does not describe the website at anything more than a cursory level. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You will have to WP:AGF I am getting "About 8,870,000 results (0.52 seconds)" for a search for "Wikiquote" ... Obviously if you have a paginate predicate of 100 and don't declare openly you have applied a paginate number and take as unreliable mutterings on the web that Google num= limit parameter may return less than the of results it is set to per such non authoritative sources and  one have a depreciation.  Does anyone have a good up to date Karma Sutra for the Google API?Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * My "paginate predicate" does not affect results; it makes them more accurate. The number of results at the top Google searches is notoriously wrong. This is a know fact in Wikipedia discussion. Try this: search "Wikiquote" and then go to page four. You will see I am right. There are only ~ 40 results for the term. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay ... I can see the Google Brain has determined many results are similar ... possibly some intelligent caching .. all showing all results gives 8m. I may have missed the 4 pages having too many pages or not looking at the bottom too carefully or it may have taken a while to filter the results.  Not changing my keep vote though ... (I'd like to take longer but I'm flipping down the computing AfD list.13:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Leaning keep, although I readily admit a localized bias. However, after some searching, I was at least able to find a conference paper analyzing Wikiquote (the conference is identified here as the 5th Joint International Semantic Technology Conference (JIST 2015), at Yichang, China). BD2412  T 14:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This source has already been flagged above. It only gives "dictionary" definition of what the website is and perhaps two more encyclopedic claims. There is no independent significant coverage of this website, only passing mentions. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Has anyone looked at the previous AfD? &  likely reasonable content,  ... only passing.  I have a bias against Wikiquote since an admin knocked off "It that beautiful or what!" and would reply to me .... and they mostly seem to blabber out loads of soap and song scripts on there but to be fair I have a French one that seems to be sticking.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * [5] and [6] are the same article and UB Reporter is a student paper, which aren't usually considered to be great sources... SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ? About the future: best to skip first 5m. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * [8] is from Wikimania and therefore not independent. The only reason to keep this page is navel-gazing. Not every WMF project is notable, especially this one. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: This is an informative article about Wikiquote. I dont understand why we even discussed for the article to be deleted? Many readers know what Wikipedia is but most readers (except us the sleepless and Wiki addicts) do not know what Wikiquote is. It helps if we work together to improve the article but to delete it, is unthinkable! Wikiquote is one of Wiki branches, what is the real reason why it doesn't deserve an article in here? Perhaps what we should do is to work together to improve the article instead of typing in lengthy to consider keeping or deleting it. My vote applies to all Wiki sister projects below:-
 * I decided to list them all because they were also being nominated for deletion in the first round by the nominator - Jay (talk) 08:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not all or nothing and this AfD has nothing to do with the other wikis, most of which are independently notable. Notability is not inherited and what is the real reason why it doesn't deserve an article in here? because it does not meet our criteria for inclusion. The same reason we delete any article about any subject that does not meet Notability. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * My point is, Wikiquote is not really known out there, that is why we don't see much being written about it outside Wiki. But if we delete it, would it help? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia or a collection of useful articles about something like this. I'm not talking about promotional articles (which I strongly object) but information about what is "the subject" such as in this case "Wikiquote" is important for readers to understand it's purpose. I used articles like this to educate most of friends who are not familiar about Wiki family. To me this article should be kept since it has the purpose and value to people who want to know more about Wiki and its "family". It may not be useful to some of us here because we know what it is but think of its value to others? It lacks of independent sources/ external reference because many out there don't really know the function of it thus made it less notable than its sister projects but by deleting it will make it more and more unknown. To me, Wikiquote is important therefore this article deserves to be kept and further improved -Jay (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I decided to list them all because they were also being nominated for deletion in the first round by the nominator - Jay (talk) 08:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not all or nothing and this AfD has nothing to do with the other wikis, most of which are independently notable. Notability is not inherited and what is the real reason why it doesn't deserve an article in here? because it does not meet our criteria for inclusion. The same reason we delete any article about any subject that does not meet Notability. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * My point is, Wikiquote is not really known out there, that is why we don't see much being written about it outside Wiki. But if we delete it, would it help? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia or a collection of useful articles about something like this. I'm not talking about promotional articles (which I strongly object) but information about what is "the subject" such as in this case "Wikiquote" is important for readers to understand it's purpose. I used articles like this to educate most of friends who are not familiar about Wiki family. To me this article should be kept since it has the purpose and value to people who want to know more about Wiki and its "family". It may not be useful to some of us here because we know what it is but think of its value to others? It lacks of independent sources/ external reference because many out there don't really know the function of it thus made it less notable than its sister projects but by deleting it will make it more and more unknown. To me, Wikiquote is important therefore this article deserves to be kept and further improved -Jay (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I decided to list them all because they were also being nominated for deletion in the first round by the nominator - Jay (talk) 08:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not all or nothing and this AfD has nothing to do with the other wikis, most of which are independently notable. Notability is not inherited and what is the real reason why it doesn't deserve an article in here? because it does not meet our criteria for inclusion. The same reason we delete any article about any subject that does not meet Notability. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * My point is, Wikiquote is not really known out there, that is why we don't see much being written about it outside Wiki. But if we delete it, would it help? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia or a collection of useful articles about something like this. I'm not talking about promotional articles (which I strongly object) but information about what is "the subject" such as in this case "Wikiquote" is important for readers to understand it's purpose. I used articles like this to educate most of friends who are not familiar about Wiki family. To me this article should be kept since it has the purpose and value to people who want to know more about Wiki and its "family". It may not be useful to some of us here because we know what it is but think of its value to others? It lacks of independent sources/ external reference because many out there don't really know the function of it thus made it less notable than its sister projects but by deleting it will make it more and more unknown. To me, Wikiquote is important therefore this article deserves to be kept and further improved -Jay (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * My point is, Wikiquote is not really known out there, that is why we don't see much being written about it outside Wiki. But if we delete it, would it help? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia or a collection of useful articles about something like this. I'm not talking about promotional articles (which I strongly object) but information about what is "the subject" such as in this case "Wikiquote" is important for readers to understand it's purpose. I used articles like this to educate most of friends who are not familiar about Wiki family. To me this article should be kept since it has the purpose and value to people who want to know more about Wiki and its "family". It may not be useful to some of us here because we know what it is but think of its value to others? It lacks of independent sources/ external reference because many out there don't really know the function of it thus made it less notable than its sister projects but by deleting it will make it more and more unknown. To me, Wikiquote is important therefore this article deserves to be kept and further improved -Jay (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Needs a bit more guideline-based input

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Still the same issue as before - "it's part of Wikimedia" is not a notability criterium and many keep arguments do not address WP:WEBCRIT and WP:GNG points.
 * Leaning towards Keep, I feel like this article has a place on wikipedia and that it just needs someone to improve it a bit. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not a policy-based rationale for keeping. There are no sources available to improve this article. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Reply: This AFD and the previous AFD seemed to bring up a whole bunch of sources that could be used to improve this article, they simply aren't being used in the article at the moment. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As discussed above, none of the sources flagged include anything substantive that can be added to the article. They are all insignificant coverage and passing mentions of the website or unreliable sources such as student newspapers or not independent. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You may be correct here. I guess that I change my 'leaning keep' to 'undecided'. As such, I guess that I have nothing to contribute and will just be quiet. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 02:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: Needs Improvement. Stalin SunnyTalk2Me 15:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep we don't need a huge article about it with controversy sections so the sources identified in this discussion are enough for the current article and deleting it would be naval-gazing over-use of notability guidelines and a dis-service to the public who woukd expect the subject to be covered here, or should we just forget about the readers alltogether in favour of bureaucracy, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC) - Jay (talk) 05:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Does the "it's part of wikipedia" count as a valid WP:COMMONSENSE argument though? I don't really have any strong arguments either way, but WP:COMMONSENSE does exist for a reason, no? I believe that made this argument earlier: "Keep: When google "Wikiquote" gives me 7.5 million hits and scholar 5,400 exc patents/citations WP:COMMONSENSE tells me deletion is likely not a good choice and its hard to all those for being useless. [1] covers is for me and can anyone tell me if [2] is any good? + those above" Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 11:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment (Already keep voting above but responding to relisters comments). When nominating per WP:BEFORE there is onus on the nom. to try to improve the article first and if that fails, if the article has noteability issues, to tag the article for improvement per WP:BEFORE C#3 or otherwise notify parties for improvement and this does not seem to have been done.  This is necessary to give goodly time for improvement and helps prevent hasty and rushed comments by at least one idiot.  The nom in the nomination rightly and correctly identified one suitable source, now articled, (Buscaldi et al, 2007) Some Experiments in Humour Recognition Using the Italian Wikiquote Collection at the International Workshop on Fuzzy Logic and Applications conference.  (DeVinney, 2007) was a dead link and not recovery at nom. time in the article, I have recovered same and it seems most suitable for the keep.  The fact it was used in Italian  curriculum ( Ministero dell'istruzione, dell'università e della ricerca, 2018) seems persuasive, the ZIP download reference is a tad of an issue and I have personally not opened it.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment (I have voted for Keep before, this explanation is to respond to relisting). Todate, there are 8 independent sources in the article. I believe it is sufficient enough for Wikiquote to pass WP:WEBCRIT and WP:GNG without having to rely on Wiki family references. The references are:-
 * 1) https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wikiquote.org
 * 2) https://web.archive.org/web/20120716195919/http://www.buffalo.edu/ubreporter/archives/vol38/vol38n19/columns/eh.html
 * 3) https://web.archive.org/web/20120504164927/http://archives.dawn.com/weekly/science/archive/070127/science15.htm
 * 4) Wikis for Dummies. John Wiley & Sons. p. 58.
 * 5) Protocollo MIUR-Wikimedia" (in Italian). Ministero dell'istruzione, dell'università e della ricerca.
 * 6) Buscaldi, D.; Rosso, P. (2007). Masulli F., Mitra S., Pasi G. (eds.). Some Experiments in Humour Recognition Using the Italian Wikiquote Collection.
 * 7) Chorowski, Jan; Łancucki, Adrian; Malik, Szymon; Pawlikowski, Maciej; Rychlikowski, Paweł; Zykowski, Paweł (21 May 2018). A Talker Ensemble: the University of Wrocław
 * 8) Rickson, Sharon (22 November 2013). "How to Research a Quotation". New York Pubic Library.
 * I also agree with Apples&#38;Manzanas that the Admin should also read up WP:COMMONSENSE and keep the article instead of relist this nomination again and again; and insisted on WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT only. Not only the Admin should use common sense, the Admin must also look at the values and benefits of the article for readers. I have written in lengthy about the values and benefits for readers before, and dont plan to repeat that again. We already have 6 "Keep" vote, I believe the nomination should be closed by keeping the article. - Jay (talk) 05:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: I can only assume /Jay is referring to the relisting admin ... who I have noted on many AfD's providing helpful comments to the discussion on relist ... often displaying great insight into Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It's pointless racking up loads of sources that won't pass WP:RS but we now have on the article (Woods & Theony 2011)("Dummies"); (Buscaldi & Rosso, 2007) and (Chorowski et al,2008) with (Rickson, 2013) also fairly tempting for WP:GNG.  For WP:WEBCRIT (Buscaldi & Rosso, 2007) and (Chorowski et al,2008) both use a lot of web content while there are many examples of Wikiquote being used for the source of things; and while not the example I was looking for this whole article from the Independent (url-access=limited) seems somewhat reliant on misquotes from Wikiquote   for example.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Below I refute any possible SIGCOV about Wikiquote:
 * https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wikiquote.org
 * Not significant coverage. Alexa evaluates almost every website.
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20120716195919/http://www.buffalo.edu/ubreporter/archives/vol38/vol38n19/columns/eh.html
 * Not RS
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20120504164927/http://archives.dawn.com/weekly/science/archive/070127/science15.htm
 * Not significant coverage. Two-sentence passing mention.
 * Wikis for Dummies
 * One of many many wikis described. Gives no more than a cursory description of the website in a few sentences (1 para).
 * Protocollo MIUR-Wikimedia" (in Italian). Ministero dell'istruzione, dell'università e della ricerca.
 * Not independent. Barely mentions Wikiquote anyway
 * Buscaldi et al. (2007). "Some Experiments in Humour Recognition Using the Italian Wikiquote Collection."
 * Seems to focus on Wikiquote. BUT DOES NOT. Only contains a 1 sentence description of Wikiquote and also mentions Italian Wikiquote. But the mention of Wikiquote is incidental. The website was only mentioned because it was a source of the quotes that were the subject of study.
 * Chorowski et al. 2018. "A Talker Ensemble"
 * Relatively, the most significant coverage available. Yet still not anything worthy of an argument for WP:GNG.
 * Rickson 2013. "How to Research a Quotation"
 * No significant coverage.
 * Also see above discussions where I point out none of the other sources flag have anything significant to pass WP:GNG. WP:WEBCRIT #1 is basically the same as WP:GNG. There has been no sources shown that Wikiquote passes WP:WEBCRIT #2, which is for websites that have received a significant award. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I obviously disagree with Coffeeandcrumbs's assessment here. (Woods & Theony, 2011) in Wiki for Dummies is sufficient to pass WP:RS and is not a trivial passing mention and their work is far from a collection of wiki websites.  Obviously in both (Buscaldi et al, 2007) (paywalled) and (Chorowski et al,2008) on a topic other than WikiQuote and they both giving a far more than passing mention to the WikiQuote and explaining why they chose to use it.  To go on to the WP:WEBCRIT ... if I quote from the sufficient Criteria#1: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.  ... Well what are (Buscaldi et al, 2007) and (Chorowski et al,2008) if not using content from Wikiquote.  And One can also look a the citations from the article (Rentoul 2013) and (Robinson 2019) who are using content from WikiQuote for their work.  So the notability stands. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2019 (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.