Last modified on 4 August 2012, at 20:10

Talk:2012 Aurora shooting

  • Discussion
Return to "2012 Aurora shooting" page.

ProdEdit

The article was prodded without any indication as to what is wrong. The rationale states "Not the sort of quote we want on WQ". Viriditas (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the tag, as I don't see anything wrong with the page (other than a lack of a source for one of the quotes - and I have tagged that). I do not believe the stated reason is appropriate for deletion. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I was unclear. When I added the tag, the page only had the quote by Robert Spitzer. In my opinion, this quote fails WQ:Q and should be removed. However, the other quotes are better. As UDScott knows, both "Poor quality" and "Unmemorable quotes" are grounds for deletion under PROD, and I should have used one of those terms. I hope this clarifies things.--Collingwood (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Collingwood. Can you explain how a quote from Robert Spitzer, one of the most recognized academic experts on gun issues in the world is not acceptable? I'm happy to try to understand your view. Viriditas (talk) 06:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Viriditas: this site is about quotations, not facts. However eminent someone is, if they have not said anything quotable they should not be included here. I linked above to WQ:Q, This says "The standard for determining whether material should be included in WikiQuote is quotability." Please read that page and ask yourself whether what Spitzer says is "particularly witty, pithy, wise, eloquent, or poignant".--Collingwood (talk) 11:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Considering that Spitzer has been quoted by every mainstream media outlet on the planet for the last decade, doesn't he meet the bar for quotability? Viriditas (talk) 11:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
A quick check shows that he hasn't been, at least in Britain. But even if he had been, the fact that he has been reported extensively in newspapers doesn't prove that this particular statement is quoteble. Would you argue that every single utterance ever reported of every major politician or entertainer is quotable?--Collingwood (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I would deprecate all articles that are based on a single news cycle. It is customary and appropriate on occasions like this for experts to make pronouncements on policy, for presidents to make statements of consolation, & etc. It is rare for such statements to be remembered and celebrated years later as remarkably quotable remarks. When one of them is particularly quoteworthy it doesn't really belong on a page with such a narrowly topical subject, it belongs in a broader theme article and/or in an article on the author. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree.--Collingwood (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)