Wikiquote

Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive

(Redirected from Wikiquote:VFDA)
Shortcut

This is an archive of topics that were previously on the Wikiquote:Votes for deletion page.

Kept articles Deleted 0-D Deleted E-H Deleted I-K Deleted L-P Deleted Q-S Deleted T-Z+ Deleted pages Deleted images Pending

Kept articles

edit

The votes on these articles resulted either in keeping them intact or moving them to more appropriate locations, keeping a redirect in place.

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: merge with 3rd Rock from the Sun. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rd Rock From The Sun

edit

Two reasons to delete this:

  1. It is a copy of about half of quotes on IMDB
  2. 3rd Rock from the Sun is a different article without (I guess) any copyright violations

— Koweja 03:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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. — Jaxl 21:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Course in Miracles

edit

Quotes are being used to promote, or advertise, a book on WP, and are being used as a circular source for both to appear to have more content and notability. 72.128.30.205 17:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed. Result: keep (5 keeps, 1 delete (nom), no dissent). -- Robert 21:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, regardless of whether one agrees with this text, it appears to be a legitimate source of quotes and certainly meets the notability requirements for WQ. ~ UDScott 17:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It should be cleaned up and marked as a stub, but it meets the standards of notability for a page here. Koweja 13:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, concur with UDScott. —LrdChaos 13:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP article is over 2 years old, with no apparent attempt to delete it. Amazon ranking of one edition is higher than 2,000, which would suggest it's fairly notable. Wikimedia articles can use each other for content referral (i.e., quotes or encylopedia material), as long as the actual sources are wiki-reliable, and the WP article (and now this WQ article, since I've added the WP intro) includes verifiable references. (Note: I haven't specifically verified these references other than to see that they exist.) I don't see a clear case of using Wikimedia for self-promotion here, so I'll say keep unless evidence for deletion is provided. (A WP AfD nomination would probably such evidence, if it is available.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. - InvisibleSun 02:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: no consensus. — Jeffq 06:23, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A Tryst With Destiny

edit

Page simply says this was moved to Wikisource. Is this a type of page that we want to have? Rmhermen 14:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Vote Closed. Result: no consensus (1 Keep [as redirect]; 1 Delete; original posting a question, not a vote). Recommend discussing this at Category talk:Transwiki as a policy issue, rather than a per-article VfD. (There is already a related discussion there under Ct:TW#Speedy delete old articles?.) — Jeff Q (talk) 06:23, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but as a redirect to Wikisource:A Tryst With Destiny. There might be interlang links on other projects (once I was led to such a page on English Wikiquote from another project, supposingly Japanese Wikiquote). And now we have no way to find such links. Recently German User Aka has developed a search engine for interlang links on Wikipedia. I asked him if he would like to customize his engine for Wikiquote. If he agree, then we can delete this type "article" without worrying ;-) --Aphaia 14:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I have found a whole set of these pages -stemming from List of speeches and Charles, Prince of Wales:

Ain't I a Woman?, The_Gettysburg_Address, Give_Me_Liberty_Or_Give_Me_Death, I_have_a_Dream, Ich_bin_ein_Berliner, Installation_Speech_(Adrienne_Clarkson), La_Liberte, On_Women's_Rights_to_Vote, Speech_to_the_Troops_at_Tilbury, Whiskey_Speech, Woodrow_Wilson_declares_war_on_Germany, We_shall_fight_them_on_the_beaches, A_speech_made_by_The_Prince_of_Wales_at_a_Business_Lunch_in_Mumbai_held_with_members_of_the_business_community, A_speech_for_the_opening_of_the_Pembrokeshire_Meat_Company_Abattoir, A_Time_to_Heal_by_HRH_The_Prince_of_Wales, A_speech_to_open_the_second_Prince_of_Wales_Education_Summer_School, The Four Freedoms Speech, Franklin Roosevelt's First Inaugural Address Rmhermen 18:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep all the above for now. These suggested changes of existing practice for transwiki links deserve some discussion. (From what I'm finding, Wikipedia doesn't even follow the official transwiki process completely, either, but we should proceed from a plan, not expediency. I think we might be doing too much radical cleanup in too short a time.) I've started a discussion on this topic at Category talk:Move to Wikisource. — Jeff Q (talk) 15:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete all. I've been persuaded by the delete arguments, and other projects seem to be ignoring the generic "keep a redirect" policy. But it's gonna be real fun adding these to the VfD archive! ;) — Jeff Q (talk) 23:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Remark This page has been deleted later due to VfD result. --Aphaia 20:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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.
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: no consensus. — Jeffq 09:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion

edit
NOTE: THIS IS NOT A VOTE IN THE CLASSICAL SENSE. This is an attempt to assess the will of the community. If you have no user, feel free to comment (especially if you have new information which has not been presented here), but any recommendation in bold you make will be struck out to help the closing admin count recommendations correctly. If you make a recommendation with a newly created user, especially one with few or no edits, it will not be struck out but might be discounted by the closing admin, per his or her discretion. There is absolutely no need to vote multiple times, and in fact, such practice is frowned upon. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Please sign all your comments with ~~~~. Please put new comments in new bullets or subbullets. Please do not modify bullets posted by others, with the exception of striking out anon votes. If any remark is not in a proper bullet, you can move it to bulleted form, and then you must add a subbullet documenting your action, and preferably also comment on the identity of the poster if the original is unsigned. Thank you for your co-operation. Mis-signatures and other such modifications will be reverted to keep the vote authentic and coherent. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 16:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What could be a useful, balanced article on the topic is repeatedly and consistently made into an anti-abortion crusade. We have made many different efforts to get balance, but they are inevitably sabotaged by the sheer amount of time that anti-abortion supporters have devoted to turning the pro-choice section into anti-abortion advocacy by overwhelming it with the worst possible quotes from pro-choicers. One anonymous user has clearly demonstrated through her talk-page postings that she believes there is really only one side, and no amount of effort from the sysop staff has been able to stem her mission to ensure this article promotes her opinion. As I believe I suggested before, if we can't have true balance or neutrality on this subject, we should simply delete the article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • VOTE CLOSES: 12:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • VOTE CLOSES: 12:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Procedural comment: My knee-jerk reaction is to extend the discussion by one week to December 8. I feel that this article had enough prominent contributors and is on an important enough subject that a decision should not be taken lightly. Currently I don't believe we have any clear policy on who is allowed to extend votes, but in general the consensus tended to be "any sysop". If there are no objections soon, I will extend it. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 22:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • VOTE CLOSED. Result: no consensus (default keep) (3 Deletes; 4 Keeps; 1 Keep struck for no proper signature; 1 Keep discounted because of improper signature followed by confusing attempts to verify and standardize; all anonymous, unsigned, and policy-violating multiple votes discounted). WELL. This may have been the sloppiest votes I've ever seen on Wikiquote. Between the irritation of the sysops at the POV editing, the cries against censorship, the illegal and occasionally indecipherable votes from anonymous editors, and the deck-stacking through freeping, I'd say I (perhaps needlessly) proved how hard it is for Wikiquote to address this subject calmly and rationally. In the end, however, there is no consensus to delete the article, and probably would have been a clear Keep consensus had more supporters voted properly. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is not possible to achieve NPOV in this article when the only frequent contributors are avowed anti-abortionists who consistently sabotage the inadequate attempts of pro-choicers and sysops to restore balance. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm not quite sure how I feel about this one. On the one hand, I understand that this page has become a nightmare to maintain, and yet I feel a bit uncomfortable about simply deleting it when there are some valid quotes to be found on the subject. Can we protect it instead? I know this raises other concerns -- namely that it limits the addition of new quotes (unless someone asked an admin to add it and admins would have a say over whether a quote that someone wants to add is valid), and an admin's personal bias could intrude. But again, I'm reluctant to just delete the page. I would like to hear some more discussion before rendering a vote. UDScott 21:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : The article is a horrible mess, and is no doubt one of the single biggest "headache" articles we have here... and probably will long remain such. I think this leads most of us to simply avoid it, so much as we are able to, but I am against deleting it or protecting it permanently merely for those reasons. It is an issue about which many statements are made... and they should be given place for expression, even if one particular editor seems fixated on mis-characterizing all manner of statements in ways that will most support and promote her particular views. I am removing it from "featured article" status on the Main Page though... something I have wanted to do very early on, even before it became much of a problem, but felt uncomfortable doing merely because of my own preferences not to draw to much attention to the subject. I think most of us can agree the article itself is one of the worst, most POV-intensive, and most frustrating that we have and shouldn't be on the main page. ~ Kalki 22:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and keep unprotected) - this is a slippery slope, in the direction of censorship. You want to delete Guns too? It's filled with quotes by people who haven't yet heard the news that the gov has nuclear weapons, and thus their guns won't protect them in case the gov becomes tyrannical. Also, my understanding is that some of the quotes there are taken straight from NRA magazines, and thus might be fraudulent - need someone who cares about this issue (and isn't lazy) to check it out. The wiki process is what people make of it. You, as an admin, have no obligation to protect a page against (what you consider to be) POV sabotage. If all the people who wish to contribute are anti-abortion, then you can assume that all the people on earth are anti-abortion. If other people start to contribute, and complain to admins about anti-abortion vandals (e.g. vandals who delete quotes, or don't accept majority vote), only then you should make the effort and help, by banning vandals perhaps. If neither you nor anyone else wish to make the effort and remove the "sabotage" from the page, then you should leave it as it is, and wait for people who do wish to invest their time in this page to do so. iddo999 23:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Jeff, perhaps try to see a positive side too: if the sabotage is so horrible, then keeping it as it is would probably increase the probability that other people who come across this page and have different views on abortions would start editing it, and then perhaps also edit other wikiquote pages. So don't try too hard to guard pages against POV sabotage, unless it's a page that you personally care about right now. Let the wiki process fulfill itself, with perhaps the positive side-effect of gaining new wikiquote editors. iddo999 23:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The comments of the others echo many of my feelings about whether or not it is approrpiate to remove a page simply because it is controversial and is subject to a lot of heavy maintenance to keep it viable and neutral (as much as possible). I remain uncomfortable with the idea of deleting a page when there are numerous valid quotes associated with a topic - it smacks too much of censorship to me. As painful as this page can be to us all, I think it should remain. UDScott 23:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with a message summarising the reason, and protect it. I've thought a lot on this issue. The page, as it is right now, is pure crap as far as I'm concerned. I do not see it as becoming non-crap without significant work, but I am not prepared to do the work myself. Here is my suggestion: blank all the page, keeping only something like "This page is now protected since no version was of sufficiently high quality. If you are interested in helping, please feel free to work on a prototype of this page in your userspace, and make a note of it in the talk page. On your prototype, you are free to insist on only editing it yourself or you can allow others to edit it. If some prototype achieves wide consensus in the talk, please alert the Admin team so they can instate the consensus version and unprotect the page." Any thoughts? ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 21:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The solution is not to censor accurate quotes, but rather to edit out any inaccuracies and edit in quotes that satisfy your own view of balance. Not sure how a quote page is supposed to be balanced, though. As long as the quotes are accurate and pertinent, they ought to be on the page. Quotes generally have a POV. Abortion is controversial, so POV of the actual quotes will be strong in many cases. Presenting those POVs to readers is the goal of a quote page for a controversial topic - to see what views people have on that controversy. What is the actual problem? Are any quotes inaccurate? Have quotes from others with different POVs been deleted? Have people not been permitted to add quotes with oter POVs? Or are the quotes that people find objectionable simply ones that expose the weakness of one POV and highlight the strength of another? Again, the solution is to add quotes that represent a POV you think is under-represented. I use the page as a source for abortion quotes because the quotes listed are amazing. I cannot believe that abortion providers and feminists have said some of the things they have said - but I have verified each and every one of them, and they all come from reliable sources. What is the underlying basis for the disappointment some of you have with the page as it currently exists? I don't see any history of trying to work the problems out, or of being specific as to why most of the quotes are objectionable. If a quote is in the wrong section, move it to the right one. If a quote is not accurate, explain why you believe so, ask for input, and then consider removing it. Censoring the page by deleting or blanking it is simply a heavy-handed extremist tactic. Mr. Grace 21:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with the page is that the only people who have time to edit it think that a quote which starts with "In no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning" should start the pro-choice section, and when people object, they cry out "then edit it to be better". However, the content should not be decided by who has more energy to invest in edit wars. This is why I feel forcing everyone to come to a consensus, and I'm pretty sure that enough will object to any "compromise" which isn't really, will finally get the edit-warriors to come to their senses. If you are interested, you could help in making the page not be crappy...that is likely to save it from deletion, even if you have to actually find quotes which do not support your POV. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 22:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The content should be decided by those who wish to edit that page. If you're not one of them, then just leave it alone and wait for other people to improve it. If there're vandals who e.g. don't accept majority vote of the people who edit on that page, then we can ban them. If you don't like the content, don't wish to edit it, and still want to delete what others do there, then it's censorship. iddo999 22:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why is that quote listed first? The protocol for a "theme" page (such as the abortion page) appears to be very simple. [1] Following it would address your concern. Mr. Grace 22:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:
    • Let's consider that these disputes and sabatoges we're discussing here and on the Abortion article talk page have been ongoing since at least July .
    • I'll repeat the [Talk:Abortion#NPOV_and_accuracy|objections] I made on the talk page for the article:
  • Some, . . . have spammed th[e] article as well as th[e] talk page to advertise Gordon Watts's activism. A [Wikiquote:Vandalism_in_progress#Abortion|thorough complaint] about this was filed.
  • Many "quotes" are listed without links. This makes their authenticity questionable, especially because some anti-abortion organizations have been preported to publish false discredits and stories in the past (take . . . the frequently-referenced-yet-bogus "study" that attempted to imply abortions cause cancer).
  • Opinions of and interview segments with quacks and other kooks have been pushed to the top of the "Pro-choice" section. Most of the more intelligent quotations have been pushed to the bottom of that section. Some genuine pro-choice quotes that seem strong arguments for pro-choice positions were relocated to the "Indefinite" section, which is deep at the bottom of the page. This implies that fringe views are more important to read and more prominent than mainstrean ones. That organization is obviously biased, thus not a NPOV.
  • "Dismemberment and extraction" is not a medical term. Wikiquote is something of an academic nature, and so medical terminology is appropriate and unmedical pregoratives as substitutes are not.
  • The quotes from Madonna, Thomas Jefferson and the U.N. . . . were from discussions that were not about abortion. (Note that neither person has ever been known publicly to advocate against abortion.)
  • Some of the quotation from Tori Amos was not about this particular topic; note the inclusion of ". . ." in that quote. Methinks this was done to make it read like an focused ramble, thus making it seem bad.
  • One credit for each of two pro-choice quotes - each quote a common medical assertion - reads "contradicting late-term abortionist Dr. George Tiller (see below) and abortion industry spokeman Ron Fitzsimmons (see above)". (And, again, some of the "quotes" seem questionable.) This seems to indicate that some editors were trying to make the page an expose' (accurate or inaccurate) of the pro-choice movement. That's not what this page is for. And it conforms to a particular POV.
  • Some of these biased editors . . . have reversed overhauls and other edits that made the article more appropriate, particularly edits that gave it a NPOV. In those cases, they've reverted it back to versions pretty much identical to [certain user]'s versions, and administrators deemed [certain user]'s versions biased and questionable.
    • And a further [Talk:Abortion#Troll_problem.3F|objection] I made later:
Mr. Grace removed the NPOV and Accuracy tags, when none of the controversies raised were fully resolved. His explaination on the edits page was ("no explanation as to which quotes are inaccurate or biased, nor any attmpt to edit to address concerns") doesn't mean there isn't a controversy. It's not even a valid excuse; the issues have been discussed on this talk page for some time now, as Mr. Grace has probably read our detailed objections, and his edits have done only a little to address the issues we've raised. Because this issue hasn't been fully resolved - in fact, it mostly remains unresolved - I've reinserted the tags. Mr. Grace clearly knows the truth of these disputes, as he has obviously read the discussions; he certainly knew enough to attack my arguments in the NPOV & Accuracy section of this talk page.
    • And an [Talk:Abortion#Neutrality_of_quote_sources|observation] from Jeff Q, who put this better than can I:
I hope I'm not opening another can of worms here, but I see a real problem with adding sourced quotes to this article. Without any qualifications of the source, it is child's play (no pun intended) to find the most rabid pro-life or pro-choice source to quote an opponent in the worst way possible, especially if it provides an opportunity for major slanting. This occured to me when I noticed 80.42.214.120's addition of Maxine Waters' ironic quote about marching for her mother's lost right to an abortion. I found three different sources for that quote, but they were all from ultra-conservative websites who all referred to the rally at which it occured as a "pro-abortion" rally, which I rather suspect is not what it was called. That made me wonder if the quote itself was accurate, especially given some of the other supposed quotes I saw cited, which were almost certainly not correct.
In today's bleak landscape of attack journalism, one cannot trust a radical pro-life website to cite such a juicy quote accurately, any more than one would expect a NOW or other radical pro-choice website to provide anything but the most self-defeating quotes from pro-life supporters. . . .
Maxine Waters' idiotic statment was quoted by several reliable sources (Wall Street Journal, Wash Times [2] and National Review [3] - and Tucker Carlson even debated James Carville about the statement on CNN and Carville defended Waters, but did not deny she said it) - with your statement above you have proven yourself to be either a terrible researcher or to be very hasty in rushing to judgment - and perhaps to have an extreme bias against anyone with views that differ from your own (such as a website that espouses views that you think should not be voiced, or exposes certain views to be shallow. The fact that any mention of Waters' participation in the rally (where she made the idiotic statement) has been scrubbed from nearly all old media reports of the event (and even edited out of the CSPAN coverage) demonstrates the extreme bias of most "reliable" media outlets. Imagine if a conservative congressman had said something as dumb as the extreme liberal Waters did - it would be on CNN every 5 minutes for 2 weeks. Instead the mainstream media has largely hidden Waters' incoherence or stupidity from its readers and viewers to protect her and the pro-abortion facade. Mr. Grace 22:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If it's quoted in the WSJ news section, then it's reliable. But if it was quoted by the yoyos in the WSJ op-ed section, then it's useless. WashTimes is less reliable, they even fabricate quotes by people that they like when it suits them, such as Tom Delay [4]. Carlson and Carville are also obviously useless. It's supposed to have been shown on TV? Why don't you seek for a video footage then? There're plenty of anti-abortion people with video recorders... For example, the conspiracy theories crowd managed to get the Fox News live broadcast on 9/11 where their correspondent who went on air after the 2nd plane hit the WTC said that it's a cargo plane that doesn't have windows. iddo999 01:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where this ends, as you have now pointed to an obscure blog website (that claims a certain quote is bogus) as your reliable source to note that some websties are not reliable. Ardent apologist (Carville) for all things liberal admitted that Maxine Waters made the idiotic statment. Several highly-respected media outlets also reported her rant. Not sure what your standard of proof is - seems like liberal blogs and liberal newspapers (NYT, for example) are good sources, but conservative ones are not reliable. That is a standard that is thoroughly unacceptable. Mr. Grace 06:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The "obscure blog" links to the WashTimes article, and mentions what the Repub senator said on CNN, so it's as credible as the senator is. If you meant that the blog fabricated the senator's words, and you're too lazy to even check this out, then here [5] - but then you're probably way too lazy to seek for video footage that you claim that the big brother at C-SPAN removed into the memory hole... Getting such footage is a lot easier than 9/11 footage, because the rally was known in advance. To repeat, the WSJ news section is very reliable, much more than the NYT I'd say, but again, info from the WSJ op-ed section is useless. Do you know how that quote appeared in the WSJ? Anyway, I suggest that for now you should be graceful and remove that quote into the talk page, pending a proof. iddo999 14:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
When former White House advisor (Carville) discusses Maxine's rant (and in doing so admits the rant occurred) you find it meaningless, but when a senator fails to elaborate on why he thinks a quote was false you find it definitive as to whether the statement was made. Your standard of proof is slippery at best - and certainly biased toward getting your way. Maxine's rant was widely published in 4 well-respected publications with no retractions and therefore it is most definitely "sourced" - its not going away. The only lazy user here is the one who has claimed that the page is filled with bogus quotes, offered no proof, and then demanded the page be deleted. Mr. Grace 07:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "senator fails to elaborate"? The senator said that the WashTimes fabricated the quote. What else is there to elaborate on? You want the senator to elaborate on the motives behind the decision to fabricates quotes? I just used this example to show that the WashTimes is less reliable than e.g. the WSJ. I'll assume that the point was taken. What Carville used to say on the Crossfire circus was meaningless in general, and certainly meaningless with regard to the sourcing of quotes in particular, so I have no idea why you keep coming back to that. Why don't you answer my question about how the quote appeared in the WSJ? I urge you again to be graceful and remove that quote until there's a proof for it. iddo999 11:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Jeff Q also put it on the same page (again, better than can I) about one abuser (sic), which I believe can accurately others editors:
She simply doesn't understand or accept that her beliefs are neither universal, nor accepted as fact. . . . she cannot be permitted to subvert it [the article/Wiki standards] in order to destroy her hated opposition either by sabotaging the organization or by overwhelming the . . . staff.
    • Let's consider the anti-choice side's insistence on continuing to do those things, and insistence on keeping the article that way or reverting it back to that way
    • Conclusion: I think the only permanent remedy would be to would to permanently protect the article, and I'm not sure if Wikiquote's administrators are willing to permanently deny us nonadministrators any editing of an article. Unless the administrators can agree to do that, then the article is like a severly medically risked patient's fetus w/ 100% chance of quick terminal illness outside the womb: sadly, it has no hope, and the best thing to do would probably be to mercifully abort it. Dr. K 06:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yikes, all this does sound very bad... However, I consider your solution to be even worse. In general, the solution for removing quotes from dubious sources is to stop being lazy (i.e. use nothing but google?) and try to research the issue. However, it can be quite hard to prove a negative, so if the only sources appear to be fraudulent (as indeed in your examples above), then I think that it would be a good idea to remove them (into the talk page, perhaps), pending a reliable source. The solution to POV comments next to a quote is simply to remove them, because other than info that's really relevant to a particular quote, everything else should go to wikipedia - we should seek to editorialize as little as possible. If the anti-abortion crowd refuses to follow such guidelines, then you should report it to admins who will revert what they do there and perhaps ban them. But first, there should be an effort by editors of that page to create a good version - if you just leave the page to the anti-abortion crowd to do what they want there, then we can leave them alone until other people would come and try to improve it. iddo999 10:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is one of my first times using this site. It is amazing, and has been extremely helpful to me in preparing a case study on Abortion for a Medical Law & Ethics class. I was really disturbed to see that it was being considered for deletion. I believe in free speech, and that we, the public, have the right to be informed. Therefore, I equate deleting a page such as this, with an incredible amount of useful information, to "book burning." Simply because the totality of content seems weighted towards one side of an issue, is NO REASON to DELETE IT! I am NOT making this statement based on personal bias. If something is out of balance - then BALANCE IT! Put the simple facts of this question in to almost any analogy: If preparing a meal, and some parts are done before others, do you throw it ALL out? If you plant a garden, and one crop grows faster, and more abundantly than another - do you plow under the whole plot, and tell yourself "I'll try for more EQUAL growth next year..."??? Of course not! From my perspective, as new to this site, this argument seems rooted in issues other than the benefit/accuracy of the information presented. Yes, the bulk of information presented represents one position over the other ... but that doesn't make all that is there inaccurate or with out value. PLEASE, consider it a work-in-progress, and don't "burn the book" to teach someone a lesson! KellyD
    • Moved to standard format by me, including striking out the vote because it came from an anon (as per our policy that anon votes are ineligible) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • KellyD, why do you lecture us about how you think that other people should improve the page, instead of offering to do it yourself? iddo999 18:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps what KellyD is sayingis that: 1) the page is accurate and therefore should not be censored, and 2) additional accurate quotes should be added by those who do not like the current (and accurate) content of the page, and 3) the responsibility to add aditional accurate quotes belongs to those who find the current accurate content disturbing enough to do the work.Mr. Grace 06:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • As I understand you, this is a misstatement of a crucial policy: writing for the enemy. The responsibility to keep NPOV and balance belongs not "to thos who find the current content disturbing", but to everyone. I realize it might be hard to add quotations which actually refute your point of view, but it is crucial for the proper functioning of the wiki. Please see my suggestion above, tantamount to deleting the page, for a way to force the various POV warriors here to seek consensus. Please note that intentional violations of NPOV are disruptive to wikiquote, which is the reason Jeff suggested the deletion, to reduce disruption. The more I hear the arguments against that decision, the more I believe he is right, since not one argument appeared relevant. Perhaps when wikiquote grows to have 20 regular editors (commited to NPOV) and 6 active administrators, we can deal with the disruption brought about by such a page. As it stands, I believe that this page draws more heat than light. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whats with the censorshiip? Aslan
  • Following "votes" are all by the same anon: ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Looks ok to me
    • Keep I think it is an excellent page
    • Keep Sure, why not?
    • Keep Dont abort the abortion page!!!!
    • Keep Babies arent that cute.
    • Keep Keep it.
    • Keep I have thought long and hard on this and I say keep.
    • Keep Keeping it is a good idea.
    • Keep Keep good. Delete bad.
    • Keep I agree with many others...keep!
  • Following vote is by another anon ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP--DO NOT CHANGE A THING. You are part of an open forum that debates ideas. People DO COME HERE to get informed. DON'T HINDER THAT.
  • Short note: Wikiquote is NOT an open forum which debates ideas, it is an encyclopedia of quotations. Just in case anyone thought it is. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anon 'vote' in a separate section moved here by me ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Keep"
      It's not the fault of us "neanderthal womyn oppressors" if some of the pro-choice comments look REALLY bad. If you are going to censor it now because advocates like Margaret Sanger (a racist supporter of Eugenics and Nazism) and Pete Singer (an unqualified homicidal maniac urging 'postnatal abortion' up to the age of 2) don't represent your side in the best light, you betray your bias and put the whole WIKI institution at risk as an objective resource. It's bad enough that no High School or College would (ok, should) accept Wiki as a suitable bibliography. We've got Nicolae Ceaucescu (a Communist dictator who ended up at the right end of the firing squad he used to terrorize the population) on the Pro-life side. Not exactly the kind of candidate we want but, why not? It's in the interest of fairness, isn't it?
      BTW, I've got a quote for you:
      "Because of my role in Roe v. Wade, how that decision came about, and my experiences working at abortion clinics, I can provide the Court with information and a perspective unavailable from other sources. I have a compelling interest in this litigation. My case was wrongfully decided and has caused great harm to the women and children of our nation. I have an interest in stopping that harm and I have an interest in disclosing the facts which expose the weakness of the underlying assumptions which led to that incorrect decision.
      3. Virtually the entire basis for Roe v. Wade was built upon false assumptions. No meaningful trial to determine the real facts was ever held. The misrepresentations and deceptions that plagued Roe v. Wade are presented to this Court to show why there is a dire necessity for a trial to ensure that the true facts regarding the nature of abortion and the interests of women are heard. These facts, which were neither disclosed to me in 1970 nor to the plaintiffs of this case before they had an abortion, are critical for understanding the issues involved. They point out the deficiencies not only of the procedure in Roe v. Wade, but in the Court's decision which was rendered in a vacuum devoid of findings of facts."
      Norma McCorvey's, Jane Roe of "Roe v. Wade", Affidavit to the US District Court of New Jersey.
      PS: For claiming to be unbiased, there are a lot of "anti-choicers" and "anti-abortion" epithet thrown around. Should I call you guys then, "pro-death"? It's only fair if you choose to denigrate us at every turn.
  • Keep
  • The fight becomes controversial only after your fighter hits the canvas after receiving a Mike Tyson uppercut. Work and train 'em harder? Beef up your arguments? Or quit and recognize the Championship is not within your grasp? Sorry for the sports analogy. But what this is mostly about is, "If I can't win I'm going to take my ball and go home!"
  • Comment: I would recommend to whoever closes this vote to discount any and all voters with less than 50 edits excepting the VfD page itself, Abort and Talk:Abortion. I don't suppose it will change the result of this vote (as it is going so far), but I think it would make a nice precedent, similary to how I closed the Tarmy vote, which would make at least one good thing come out of this VfD. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 16:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your attitude is certainly no way to expand the number of active users on Wikiquote. And please do try to be more courteous when making this section look how you want it to.Mr. Grace 17:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Being "active" only on one vote and POV-warring on one page is not my idea of "active". If you wish to prove me wrong, feel free to make useful edits on a bunch of pages unrelated to abortion: we have a large number of pages which could use expansion (The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay, which I started), accuracy checks (Sherlock Holmes) or format improvements (Morton Feldman). Since the goal of VfD is to assess the will of the community, we need to have some definition of community. I truly hope, but sadly, I do not expect, that you will decide to join the community by improving wikiquote. Perhaps this will give you an idea of why the regular editors are overworked enough that they do not have time to respond to ultimatums on Talk:Abortion ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 02:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pro-abortion rights users are perfectly free to add their quotes as well. There is no reason such an article need be censored. It's open to all. --Jakes19 06:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was the user's first edit, less than five minutes after being created. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)\[reply]
      • I spend most of my time on Wikipedia as Jakes18. I intended on creating an account here, but never got to it until a few days ago, when I saw this garbage was going on and felt it necessary. Does the Abortion article portray abortion rights supporters in a negative fashion? I think that's what most would come out with. Does it matter? No. They are true quotes. To delete them would be more or less censoring true statements you are not comfortable with. If pro-abortion rights Wikiquotians are unimpressed with the page, they are perfectly free to edit it themselves. Should we delete "Bushisms" because it sheds a negative light on GW, and that may annoy his supporters? No. --Jakes19 18:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The expiration date of this vote has passed - our busy sysops have not had the chance to tally the vote. Looks like there is no consensus to sensor the abortion page. Please do not vandalize this comment by deleting it. I am simply making a reasonable and relevant note in this section regarding this vote. Mr. Grace 20:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The large puppet contingent was due to a Freep: [6] I scanned this section and didn't see anyone enter this information, apologies if this was known. Just thought you might like to know. KillerChihuahua 23:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: UNIDENTIFIED. NO SIGNATURE

Adult Swim

edit

Salvaged from speedy candidates: a prospective form, but no quotes. Or just it should be deleted like the past candidates under the game companies or game platforms. I am not sure but it isn't obviously speedy candidate in my opinion at least currently. That is why I list it here. --Aphaia 3 July 2005 11:47 (UTC)

  • Vote closed: (Keep as category: 2 supporters, no dissenters)
  • Keep as a list article (possibly moving to "List of Adult Swim shows") ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 3 July 2005 12:17 (UTC)
    • Rationale: These shows have their own flavour, it seems, so a list of them would be interesting. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 3 July 2005 12:17 (UTC)
  • Question: Can we redirect mainspace articles to Categories? If possible, we could move/copy this to Category:Adult Swim with a redirect, add a short blurb about what Adult Swim is, and add this category to each of its existing show articles. This is how one might expect a "List of..." article to be completely replaced by Category. — Jeff Q (talk) 4 July 2005 06:13 (UTC)
    • Comment: I've tested on a personal mediawiki project (with 1.4 installed), and it is possible. I hope it still is :) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 5 July 2005 08:23 (UTC)
  • Move/copy to Category:Adult Swim, with redirect if possible. — Jeff Q (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: to forestall arguments about missing show pages, I've created a stub for the only page there which did not have an article. Now moving should be relatively simple. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. — Jeffq 03:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adventures of Chico & Guapo, The

edit

No quotes. —LrdChaos 23:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: Kept. — Aphaia 8 July 2005 08:24 (UTC)

AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes

edit

In my opinion

  1. if I recall correctly we have a policy "not to create a sort of favorite lists".
  2. and it can't be more than a dead copy of AFI's list. --Aphaia 08:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote closed: Result: Kept (4 keeps, 2 deletes) --Aphaia 8 July 2005 08:24 (UTC)
  • Delete: And I am afraid if it is copyvio too. --Aphaia 08:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep (Jeff's arguments persuaded me) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 6 July 2005 07:54 (UTC)
  • Delete: Sveden 21:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikiquote is, by its nature, a "favorite quotes" list; recent objections to "favorite lists" were more about the Favorites article that was slated for deletion and about personal lists that don't belong in main article space, whereas this is a properly sourced published list. In the U.S., copyright protects the presentation, arrangement, and supporting material of lists (i.e., the 3-hour program presenting the AFI list), but not the list itself, if it's based on an obvious order, like poll data (see Feist vs. Rural); the EU's database rights law may or may not apply, and its sui generis rationale seems ambiguous in this situation, at least as presented in the WP article. Furthermore, this list is also available on Wikipedia, where basic lists of these types (i.e., produced within copyrighted programs) have apparently passed numerous deletion and copyvio tests. (See the WP village pump archive for the latest rehashing of this issue on other such lists.) This strikes me as an obvious article that I had expected someone to add within 24 hours of the program's broadcast (as it was) and would be an obvious thing for a reader to look up here. I say we keep it unless Wikipedia (which is much more likely to get this issue right) declares such lists as copyvios. — Jeff Q (talk) 23:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nice links, thanks JeffQ. With regard to the copyvio issue, until a formal argument is presented on why copying this specific list is illegal, I don't see why it should be deleted. With regard to the other reasons given, I didn't really understand them - perhaps someone could elaborated? Sams 00:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's important! The greatest movie quotes of all time. Isn't that worth something? We are a collection of quotes and this is the most famous collection of quotes. We need to keep it.- B-101 16:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree that this list is important, but it can hardly be considered the "most famous collection of quotes", except in a Warholian sense, when it's only a few days old. ☺ — Jeff Q (talk) 17:07, 25 Jun 2005 (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.
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. — MosheZadka 03:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksis Kivi

edit

No quotes. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: Kept.. — Aphaia 00:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Sina

edit

Doubt of notability. This person seems to have a certain notablity on the Internet(See [7], removed "Ibn Sina", "Abu Ali Sina" (both mean to "Avicenna", an persian born philosopher and "Bu Ali Sina" [University]), there are 323,000 results and his own site came 9th. It is not a bad result. But I suspect if this person is also known in the "real world", and if not, he (or she) doesn't match my criteria (If so, I can't find any difference between "known" bloggers and this person). If someone shows me an evidence (like his books, or his activities in the real life), I would concur easily. --Aphaia 28 June 2005 09:00 (UTC)

  • Keep. Because there's a wikipedia article. Sams 28 June 2005 21:00 (UTC)
  • Comment: if you think that he's not notable, why don't you also issue a wikipedia VfD? You might get responses from a broader audience this way. Sams 28 June 2005 09:29 (UTC)
    • Comment: Because I am not an active part of English Wikipedia. I am principally a Wikiquoter. I spend usually little time on English Wikipedia -- and don't want to more involved. I have already many things to do (and somehow responsible), I am not therefore interested to wider my activites. Sorry for personal talk, but I would like you to realize it is not equal to be active on English Wikiquote to be active on English Wikipedia. And I don't imagine the latter is mundatory here. --Aphaia 28 June 2005 09:33 (UTC)
      • Comment: Anyone else interested in issuing a wikipedia VfD then? I'm also not an active wikipedia user. Sams 28 June 2005 10:09 (UTC)
  • Notability does not mean likeability. Osama Bin Laden, Zaqawi, Pol Pot, or criminals like Son of Sam and Jack the Ripper are not likeable but they are mentioned in books and encyclopedias and are notable. I am fully aware that anyone who criticizes Islam is worthless for Muslims, Salman Rushie was given a death decree and his book was burned. Many bookstores carrying his book were bombed and a couple of translators of his book were assassinated. For Muslims, Rushdie is scum and his books are worthless. Whether Muslims are right about Rushdie or not is not the point. The point is that one does not have to be right or likable to be noteworthy. Many noteworthy people are just notorious. Anyone who has an opinion that is controversial and is read and discussed by a lot of people is noteworthy irrespective of the correctness or incorrectness of his views. Ali Sina is enough important at least for a group of Muslims to create an entire site, calling it after his site just to refute what he and other writers in faithfreedom.org say. Another Islamic site dedicated to Sina’s site and refuting what he says is Bismikaallahuma.com. There are at least two Islamic sites and tens of articles in other sites written by Muslims that are just to refute him and other writers in faithfreedom.org. So obviously he is not as insignificant as you claim. I have quoted the opinions of Sina’s critics and provided links to them, including those that are disparaging. Is Mr. Sina worth mentioning? A google search with “Faith freedom international” results in nearly 60,000 entries.[8] Tens of thousands more entries can be found when search is done with faithfreedom [9] and “Ali Sina” . Several important sites such as AsiaTimes.com [10] WorldNetDaily.com [11]and Frontpagemag.com [12]have written about him and several other important sites have published his articles. The point is that he is noteworthy. This does not mean he is right. I did not say that he is. I did not say Rushdie is right either. However, those who criticize Islam do not become automatically insignificant just because Muslims don’t like what they say. An encyclopedia is to provide a balanced expose of people who are noteworthy. The very fact that Mr. Zakaria, Mr. Edip Yuksel, and other prominent Muslims debated with Mr. Sina and have published their debates in their sites shows that at least they think he is important enough to be refuted. Please do not confuse noteworthiness with likeability or correctness. Sina is noteworthy because he is read by millions. He is liked by some and disliked by others. He is a controversial personage. The job of Wikipeia is not to take side and list only people who are liked or precisely people who are liked by Muslims. In Islamic countries criticism of Islam is banned and critics are jailed or killed. In free societies we can’t tolerate his intolerance. The critics of Christianity, Judaism and all other religions have the same rights to express their views as the supporters of these religions have. I urge Muslims to exercise restraint and Wikipedia which is a free and unbiased encyclopedia to remain free and unbiased. Maybe you can start another Islamic encyclopedia where you control what goes in and censor all opposing views. But please let Wikepedia remain neutral. Thanks for your consideration. I don’t think the pretext that one is not known in the “real world” is a valid criteria. Ibn Warraq is world famous critic of Islam. Ibn Warraq is a pseudonym. I have not personally seen Sina saying Ali Sina is not his real name. If it is not, it is understandable for safety reason. [User: 72.21.32.122]
    • "read by millions"? The above is a weird mixture of straw men and unsubstantiated claims. If you read Aphaia's original comment above, it has nothing to do with the likability straw man of yours - just a concern about notability, raising the precise issue that you choose to avoid, which is whether many online links imply notability in the real world, or whether it's some google bomb hoax spread by those right-wing websites that you mention, etc. If he had published a book, or some articles that receive peer reviews, or your claim that he's read by millions can be substantiated, then you could have skipped all of that likability nonsense, which no one has ever used on either wikipedia or wikiquote as reason to delete an article, as far as I know... Sams 28 June 2005 21:00 (UTC)
  • Comment: I created this because article Ali Sina on wikipedia was becoming a quote respository. I personally think he's rather unnotable but wikipedia is of a medium that we can have marginally notable people as long as we do not link them on prominent pages. My only request is that there be consistency and if you want to keep here keep on wikipedia, and if you want to delete here delete on wikipedia. 68.82.51.76 28 June 2005 21:18 (UTC)
    • Comment: Your assertion about "marginally notable people as long as we do not link them on prominent pages" sounds very wrong to me, or at least it should be. As for your point about consistency, I completely agree with it, but unfortunately we don't control wikipedia. Would you like to raise a VfD there? (You must register an account, otherwise you cannot vote.) BTW my personal opinion is that both articles should be kept, but I don't plan to vote on wikipedia. Sams 28 June 2005 21:36 (UTC)
      • Even notable people should not be at times linked on prominent pages. Jerry Falwell (who is prominent enough for wikipedia definitely as a household name) is notable, but he should not be linked on w:Christianity. That's what I mean... and I think that sounds reasonable? I don't really think it's a matter of controlling wikipedia... I think reasonable editors will see that Ali Sina has very little impact on Islam and should not be linked from that article. Just like Muslims like Rashad Khalifa shouldn't be either. I will only raise the VfD on wikipedia if it's deleted here (which I don't think it will be). Oh, and I'm w:User:Grenavitar on wikipedia, I don't use quotes enough to make a name... (and, I'm 68.82.51.76 from above but I am at a different location) 128.175.20.75 6 July 2005 15:59 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is degenerating into another personality war. The Wikipedia VfD suggestion is a method en:Wikiquote has used successfully before to stimulate debate by the vastly-larger WP audience on the notability (not popularity) of a person or topic. Whether it results in a delete or a keep consensus, we can use the result here to help our much smaller audience determine whether an article is worth preserving. We are not obligated to follow any decision on WP, as we (A) have a different purpose, and (B) are our own community and make our own decisions. It's just an aid. That said, there are many other methods we use to attempt to determine notability. Google is one, but as I've pointed out in many other debates, it is not authoritative, as it merely registers current popularity (which is not necessarily the same as notability) and can be "bombed" (thanks Sams; I hadn't heard that term before). Print sources are always preferred. Telecast speeches are highly desirable. Websites are the least useful source, as anyone can create a website in a few minutes. In fact, websites more often provide evidence of self-promotion attempts, although each situation must be examined individually. I have no current position on this question; I just wanted to point out the reasons behind some of our existing practices. — Jeff Q (talk) 28 June 2005 22:34 (UTC)
  • Keep it- I like to learn both sides of Islam.
    • Comment: I am not sure how keeping Ali's quotes allows anyone to learn about a "side of Islam" -- these are the standard ramblings against Islam, except said by a (purported?) ex-Muslim, giving it some supposed legitimacy. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 5 July 2005 06:51 (UTC)
  • Even if these quotes are “standard ramblings against Islam” they are typical rambling of all ex-Muslims against Islam. They are not important because they are the views of Mr. Sina but because they are shared by the majority of ex-Muslims. We could delete this page; in that case I suggest we start a new page quoting Ibn Warraq or another ex-Muslim. To understand the views of ex-Muslims, we must read what they say. I have chosen quotes that make the reader see in a glance what a typical ex-Muslim says. [User: 72.21.32.122]
  • Keep for now. In the absence of a WP VfD to further discern notability, and despite some of the questionable arguments made above, I'm willing to accept this person's WP article as temporary evidence of notability, especially given the other problems Wikiquote is dealing with at the moment. — Jeff Q (talk) 22:22, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but of course keeping the criticisms as well. If a person is notable enough for Wikipedia that seems a good criterion for inclusion here, and criticisms by people he enters into dialog with should also be notable enough for inclusion. If any of the primary quotations or the critical quotes are not founded upon clear evidence that too can be noted in the comments. ~ Achilles 10:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I have just explained elsewhere, no it cannot. Existence of evidence strengthening a quote, or lack thereof, is not part of wikiquote's mandate. That is up to scholars of current affairs, and perhaps up to wikipedia to summarize those scholars' works. Wikipedia has strict "no original research" policy -- but wikiquote's policy "no comments except those required for context", and those must be npov. Let us leave the debates to scholars, and summarization of the debates to encyclopedias, and let us be an accurate collection of quotes (and we have significant amounts of efforts to do here, as many know) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: kept. --Aphaia 04:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amber

edit

No quotes. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 23:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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. — MosheZadka 20:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amitabh Bachchan

edit

No quotes. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 12:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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. — Jeffq 09:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anything Goes

edit

Unclear what this is about, and a google search did not reveal anything useful. It's possible this could be rescued with more background information.

  • Vote closed. Result: Keep (4 Keeps; no dissent; article slightly improved). — Jeff Q (talk) 09:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: MosheZadka 05:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Now that it's clear what it refers to, and has quotes. MosheZadka 13:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unless the author provides info/link to the movie or whatever that he's referring to. Sams 20:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. Deserves at least a stub. Thanks for the info. Sams 22:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a musical.
  • Keep. This is a famous 1934 musical whose Cole Porter songs are a notable part of Americana. I've added a brief intro line to the article and a stub message. I've also asked one of the anon editors to help us expand this and other musical theater articles. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Cole Porter musicals deserve articles - even stubby. --Aphaia 20:20, 11 Jun 2005 (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.
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: redirect to List of proverbs. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 19:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aphorism

edit

Quotes which are aphorisms. If we took it seriously, this page would grow tremendously. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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 as redirect. — Angela 04:30, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Arthur C. Clark vs Clarke

edit

Arthur C. Clark. It's a mistype. I've already moved the quotes to Arthur C. Clarke, but someone ought to delete it. Speaking of which, what's the mechanism for becoming an Administrator here? -- Gaurav 17:21, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Keep as redirect. I expect it is a common mispelling. Angela 04:30, 29 Jan 2004 (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.
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: merged into Azerbaijani proverbs. — Jeff Q (talk) 04:23, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Azerbaijani proverbs

edit

I merged the data from this stub int Azerbaijanian Proverbs, but the former is the proper title, based on Wikipedia's spelling of the language, Azerbaijani. I would have moved the latter to the former, except the latter had significantly more material and history. Although the stub is now a redirect, it has a history, so I anticipate an error moving Azerbaijanian Proverbs to Azerbaijani proverbs. Meta-Wiki says that deleting the stub should clear the way for the move. — Jeff Q (talk) 07:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Support: I propose two resolutions; 1) once deleting "Azerbaijani proverb", after copying its history on talk of "Azerbaijanian Proverbs" and then move the latter to the former (the correct name) 2) manually copying the (merged) content of "Azerbaijanian Proverbs" to the correct one and making the latter a redirect to the former (for preserving its significant history). --Aphaia 09:44, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand Aphaia second step. If the article is moved its history and talk page moves with it and a redirect is automatically created. Why would anything have to be moved manually? Rmhermen 00:56, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
2) is not the second step, I proposed two ways - we can choose one of them. The second way is helpful to preserv history (and I am sure most of editors don't care the differences between two): because if we delete one of them to move another, then the history of the former will be lost, and technically it is GFDL violation unless the history of the former won't be kept under the most strict analysis. To prevent this we can merge it technically like 1) but I don't prefer it generally because such history tends to be painful to read. Explanation: when we merge two article technically, (it follows those steps: 0) merging two article on title A manually 1) delete article A. 2) move article B into A. 3) undelete former A, their histories appear cumlatively: then it appear oldest revision of former A, oldest revision of former B, second oldest revision of fromer A ... and it is very painful to read as I say on the above. --Aphaia 04:03, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Resolved. Kalki expeditiously merged the cumulative article into Azerbaijani proverbs and redirected the bad name (Aphaia's 2nd resolution) on 27 March. — Jeff Q (talk) 04:23, 30 Mar 2005 (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.
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: merge. — MosheZadka 12:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bokononism

edit

This is merely the wikipedia page reprinted verbatim. ~ UDScott 22:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: Kept.. — Aphaia 09:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bonus Stage

edit

No quote content. Expand or delete. jni June 27, 2005 06:06 (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.
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. — Jeffq 12:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cast Away

edit

No quotes. ~ UDScott 11:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: move to Category:United States Marines. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marines

edit

Only four members of category. Category:Military leaders only has 51 members.

  • The Marines Category has only one listing so far, because I have just started. Marine is not a military occupation, it is a Branch of Service, and for a Marine a way of life. Marines as a Subcategoy of the Military have a very different take on things especially in contrast to services such as the Air Force. Marines will produce quite different quotes. Also they are many Marines worth quoting that are not traditionally consider Military Leaders. Sgt Maj Dan Daily, winner of two Medals of Honor has many good quotes. Many of his quotes are as a junior enlisted Marine. I think you will find that for the most part people will only put generals in the category of Military leaders.

    If nothing else this has encouraged add more Marine Quotes.  :-)
    --Chalko 10:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Are pages allowed to have multiple categories? Is it incouraged? I think many pages will have multiple categories, so worry about splitting a category is unnecessary--Chalko 10:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • I went through and grabed the crossovers from Category:Military leaders. There are now 4 links. --Chalko 10:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Administrative note: I've moved the comments to std. comment format to make discussion easier. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fear I do not see the relevance of these arguments. Being a military leader is what made Lt. Gen. Mattis notable, which is why he is in that category. Multiple categories are encouraged -- but not links to supercategories. Every category, and category split, has a cost, and a value. Currently, our category system has very rough divisions except where categories grew extremely large. Again, a more basic subdivision of military leaders is along national boundaries, and after we do that, further splitting will not be justified -- for a very long time. Even if you add 20 more marines, it will not change the situation significantly. But do note that if we later find out we need the category later, reconstructing it is easy enough :) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Subdividing by nations does not seem relevant to me. Books of miltary quotations do not divide by nation. I read about leaders from all nations. The profesion of arms is much the same for all nations. However Marines, Saloirs, Soldiers and Airmen have very different perspectives on things. However I do concede that I need to find notable Marines that are not considered Military Leaders. I will continue to look. My initial take on Officer vs Enlisted is not really enough. --Chalko 08:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Zell Miller is a Notable Marine that would not be considered a Miltary Leader. He attained the rank of Sergeant. Although Sergeants lead and have a very demanding leadership task. Sergeants or not usually listed amongst notable Military Leaders. --Chalko 08:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure why, though. Sergeants do have the responsibility to lead troops in combat...that is what I consider military leaders :) (Also, you are aware that "marines have their own view" is a US-centric view, right? I doubt US marines and other marines would see eye-to-eye...) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sergeants are more of the "foreman" or shift supervisor level. Don't get me wrong I have been both a Sergeant and Major in a Combat zone. I lead both times. However I am confident that if you picked up a book called "Military Leaders" It would list primarily Generals, and very few enlisted members.--Chalko 11:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "marines have their own view", I am confident that the Thai, ROK and British Marines think different than there Army counter parts, but the USMC trains with them quite often. I do agree that US Marines and other Marines think different, but I still feel Marines lend a unique perspective that leads to a distninct kind of quote. I would consent to changing the Category to United States Marines but I don't think there is a need to distinguish on national boundries. The profession of Arms respect profesional no matter where they come from.--Chalko 11:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a general discussion page on the desired scope of a category?--Chalko 11:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Category:United States Marines under Category:Occupations (a reasonable approximation to "way of life" for categorization purposes), much like we have for Category:United States First ladies. (BTW, that latter needs a capitalization fix, either to USfl or USFL.) Current category is U.S.-centric, permitting only USMC personnel (who I happen to think are the finest fighting force in the world!) while inappropriately assuming the generic term "Marine". The alternative, allowing inclusion of Marines of all nations, past and present, seems less than optimal, for the following reasons:
    1. It's clearly not the intent of the category creator, who is actively adding USMC quotee articles.
    2. It might be difficult to define what makes a "Marine" for such an all-encompassing group, but it would be required for our worldwide, history-wide quotation compendium.
    3. We do allow ad-hoc creation of categories based on growing content (though we try to get them integrated into a scheme), but there's no point in widening the category (at least at this time) if we're not expecting any other articles outside the current definition.
    I have no inherent objections to a USMC personnel category, as I'm sure there are many notable ones with sourced quotes who might not be considered "leaders" per se. (But when can we expect the Chesty Puller article, Chalko? ☺) I'm willing to let this develop and revisit the status down the road, if necessary. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Category:United States Marines is a reasonable solution--Chalko 17:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin note I moved my vote up to the top to make the current count more obvious--Chalko 17:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC) (cancelled by Jeff Q; see below)[reply]
    • Chalko, please do not create novel structures for WQ:VFD entries. I'm sure you wanted to provide an easy-to-read summary, but in the process, you missed my vote and added work for the sysops to ensure the votes and discussions were in sync. I have reverted this VFD entry to the official WQ format and removed the apparent double-vote from Achilles caused by this desynchronization. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Category:United States Marines. Though we as yet have few pages of military leaders, the category can be expected to grow, and hopefully other sub-categories will as well. ~ Achilles † 18:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Category:United States Marines under Category:Occupations UDScott 23:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Poor NPOV. Not all Marines have participated in a Occupation. But why do I bother with facts. Feel free to add category Occupations and then carefull select those Marines who have quotes about an Occupation. --Chalko 15:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Chalko, I'm not quite sure why you're continuing to argue -- I'm agreeing with the move to Category:United States Marines, which you agreed with earlier. Granted there can be several interpretations of the word Occupation, but for the purposes here, we are treating someone who is in the Marines (or any other branch of service) as having that as his or her occupation. In the end, I don't think we are advocating doing anything different from each other. UDScott 15:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I read Occupation as Occupation of Iraq. Agree Marine is a Occupation (Job)--Chalko 20:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope everyone voting Move understand that in this context it is short for "Create new category, redirect Marines to it, and edit all articles to contain new category", since physically moving categories is IIRC impossible. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: Kept. --Aphaia 3 July 2005 14:53 (UTC)


Category:Native Americans

edit

Nominated by Bennmorland, 07:12, 19 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed: Kept (4 keeps, some significant comments from an editor, not explicit dissent but apparent not in favor of keeping it). As a subsidiary result, Category:Amerindians should be deleted (3 deletes, no explicit dissent) --Aphaia 3 July 2005 14:53 (UTC)
  • Delete. Replaced by Category:Amerindians -- Benn M 07:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) (The user who nominated the entry for deletion wishes to strike through his vote here. How does he do this? --Benn M 17:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC))
    • Comment: I stroke it. Use <s></s> or <del></del>, further information is available on Wikiquote:How to edit a page, I hope ... Aphaia
      • Thanks. --Benn M 23:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Could you let me know why "Amerindians" is the better name? Native Americans sounds me more natural and Amerindians sounds strange and a bit unclear. --Aphaia 21:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Personally, I prefer the linguistic term "Amerind", which has sufficient separation from its erroneous English origins to be useful with less false implication. — Jeff Q (talk) 17:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I am long familiar with the term Amerindian, and have used it, but it does remain relatively unfamiliar to most people, while Native American is quite commonly used. I believe Native Americans should be preferred here, as it is on the Wikipedia, and Amerindian deleted as a category. ~ Kalki 21:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and delete the Amerindian category. Sams 22:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: And the Pandora's box of categorization by nationality/geography/ethnicity is hereby opened. Not that I would stoop to saying I told you so, eh? ☺ — Jeff Q (talk) 02:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Native Americans is a more inclusive title than Amerindian which does not include Inuits and perhaps Na-Dene groups like the Navaho. See discussion at Talk:Native American. Rmhermen 17:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Rmhermen, your comment implies that we want to include Inuits and others in the category. Why shouldn't they be in a separate category? What is the intended subset of peoples to be represented by this category? Aren't we really talking about "people of the Americas whose ancestors arrived between 25,000 BCE and 1000 CE", or "people of the Americas whose ancestors weren't from colonizing European nations"? And where do we fit notable people who have ancestors in both the earlier and later populations? — Jeff Q (talk) 17:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Citing Rmhermen's citation. Delete Category:Amerindians. A note on the categorization by nationality/geography/ethnicity in this particular circumstance. I didn't want the term "Native American", often misconstrued as a native of the territory of the United States, to be so misconstrued. However, after reading this, I relent. -- Benn M 19:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I don't think it is a good idea to begin another vote on a certain deletion vote (because every vote needs at least 14 days and it make the discussion unclear). --Aphaia 07:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: As a native American (i.e., someone born in America), I take offense to this categorization. (Not enough to vote one way or another on it; just enough to make inconvenient, probing comments.) My friend Magdalena is also a native American, having been born in Mexico, North America. Yes, our ancestors participated in the slaughter of the earlier residents (the so-called indigenous peoples, who themselves moved in from Asia and/or Pacific islands), but then again, some of our ancestors were probably from those very same earlier occupants, putting many of us on both sides of this classification divide. This is what I mean by arguing that such distinctions are inherently misleading, confusing, and therefore of dubious value. — Jeff Q (talk) 17:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • So you also take offense to wikipedia:Category:Native Americans? I don't see the value in making isolated decisions on issues that aren't related to quotations. Therefore, if it's important to you, since you're an active wikipedia user I suggest that you also raise this issue there. Sams 20:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Not to mention w:Category:Murdered Native Americans. -- Benn M 23:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes, I object to both Wikipedia categories on the "Native American" part (not the murdered part, as long as it's supported by facts). But I've already said I'm on no crusade on categories, and this goes double for Wikipedia. I am mainly interested in preventing the importing of such crusades into an understaffed Wikiquote without good reason. It's like an "unfunded mandate" — we add complexity to WQ without the means to maintain it, except, of course, that we do it to ourselves voluntarily. — Jeff Q (talk) 01:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • It seems like a contradiction to me when you say "add complexity to WQ", because the simple option is to use the common "Native American", while you're making an argument that the common terminology shouldn't be used, thus introducing complexities. So how come that you say in this context that you're interested in preventing complexities? Sams 01:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • The complexity I refer to is adding the never-ending arguments that ensue from using inherently controversial classifications to our already overextended set of unresolved issues. I was not in favor of introducing categories by nationality, geography, or ethnic background. I realize that it's inevitable that we'll have these; I just didn't want to deal with it so soon. Every active user on Wikiquote has at least 5 or 6 things they feel we should add, modify, standardize, or otherwise change, and many of them are unique to each user. The resulting pile-up of administrative work is a real headache. But I'll shut up on this particular issue now. — Jeff Q (talk) 28 June 2005 05:19 (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.
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. — Jeffq 11:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Parker

edit

No quotes at all. Delete unless expanded. jni 17:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) After seeing the expanded version, I wish to change my vote to keep and withdraw this VfD nomination. jni 16:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: Keep (4 Keeps; no dissent; article improved). — Jeff Q (talk) 11:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've added some wiki structure and the single quotation about Parker from Wikipedia. It's still a fairly minimal article. — Jeff Q (talk) 04:12, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now. I have also expanded it. Rmhermen 13:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now, after Rmhermen's substantial expansion. — Jeff Q (talk) 17:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and I would like to have a rule on withdrawal ;-) --Aphaia 12:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: no consensus. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chiropractic medicine

edit

Transwikied article from English Wikiquote. It has two problems:

  1. Wrongly transwiki way: though it has a link to the original article, but lack the information of history (so GFDLvio, if we follow it strictly).
  2. ... and imho it is weird as Wikiquote article. Seems to an extract from news or just memorandum to a certain topic. --Aphaia 12:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: no consensus (no explicit votes; 1 implicit Delete). Some may consider this to be sufficient to delete, but I feel that if the community isn't able to muster any explicit votes at all, we cannot consider this a consensus to delete. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: No consensus/keep. — LrdChaos 15:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

College football

edit

Neither of the quotes on this page are really about college football; the one from the quarterback is more of a personal quote about he ended up playing football (and is present on the just-created page for that person) and the JFK quote is about going to the moon, and includes only a passing reference to college football by mentioning two rival teams. —LrdChaos 15:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. —LrdChaos 15:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as page author. One of the quotes is from a US president who is making the analogy that going to the moon is like Rice University playing University of Texas at college football. In both cases, the objective is hard yet people choose to attempt it anyway. (UT almost always wins the football matchups with Rice). The other is by a college football player who talks about his decision to play football being a choice about turning his life around and not ending up "dead or in jail". Both quotes are right on point to the subject matter. Johntex 16:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is already a page for Football. The Vincent Young quote could simply be moved there. As for the Kennedy quote: to say that it is about football merely because it mentions football as a reference is like saying that "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore" is a quote about Hell. - InvisibleSun 01:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the Football page is a confusing melee of quotes on soccer, college football, pro-football, probably Canadian football also, I'm not sure. all about soccer, not American football, and certainly not about college football.
The specific sentence from the Kenedy quote "Why does Rice play Texas?" Is 100% all about those two universities and their college football rivalry. The fact that he compares going to the moon to a football rivalry is what makes the quote interesting to college football. Johntex 02:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS - I've now added 3 additional quotes related to college football. I need to clean up the formatting, since I copied them from Wikipedia, but that is a clean-up problem, not a deletion problem. Clearly there is/will be enough content to fill this article. Johntex 02:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PPS - added one more. Johntex 04:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have done the restructuring and reformatting that Johntext acknowledged needed to be done. (I'm still a bit concerned about all the explanatory text, but I accomplished my main goal with the basic cleanup.) I think this subject makes a reasonable theme article, although I share LrdChaos and InvisibleSun's concern that a theme article should not be treated as a catch-all place for quotes that are not fundamentally about the subject, but only mention it in passing. (To this end, I have deleted the Kennedy quote, as it is fundamentally about space travel, not college football, overseas flying, or mountain climbing.) To Johntex, whose enthusiasm is appreciated, I would point out that, just as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, Wikiquote is not an indiscriminate collection of quotes. Not every quote that is of interest to fans of a subject necessarily makes a good theme-article quote. If we don't keep theme quotes tightly on target, theme articles would rapidly expand to include anything even tangentially related to their subjects, vastly increasing the repetition of quotes throughout many articles. Please note that the "Search" function will find quotes across all articles, and truly related subjects can be linked to under "See also". ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This could be a huge collection eventually, it's just new is no reason for deletion. I just added about 10 sourced quotes. --MECU 23:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quote websites are not legitimate sources, as they are not reliable by Wikimedia standards, and rarely provide true source data, like publication titles, articles, dates, etc. They are, in fact, the most efficient modern method of spreading misquotations, as I can personally attest to after quite a bit of source cleanup. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have changed the referencing format, and changed from a "quote website" to more improved source (mostly About.com). It's still a work in progress. --MECU 01:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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.
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. — MosheZadka 02:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Constantine

edit

Encyclopedic stub. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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. — MosheZadka 01:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Consumerism

edit

No quotes, just personal commentary. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 18:42 (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.
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: merge with Crusade (TV series). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crusade

edit

This page was given the {{vfd}} tag by User:Jamillian, but they didn't follow through on it here. I've left a message on their talk page about this, so hopefully they will come by and explain why they feel it should be deleted. —LrdChaos 17:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete His Holiness the Dalai Lama, redirect Dalai Lama to Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama. — Aphaia 16:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dalai Lama

edit

Originally titled His Holiness the Dalai Lama Dalai Lama

Now both are (double) redirects to Tenzin Gyatso to Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama (and that is why I found them). --Aphaia 4 July 2005 09:15 (UTC)

Vote closed. Results:

  • Delete or Turn to disambiguation(s) because there were apparently his precedences ... I don't think it is a good idea we have such redirect with title, like "Pope", "British Queen" and so on.--Aphaia 4 July 2005 09:15 (UTC)
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 5 July 2005 06:49 (UTC)
  • Two different fates for two different redirects:
    • Delete "His Holiness the Dalai Lama". It does not following English Wikipedia title practices, as is currently demonstrated by its absence there. — Jeff Q (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect "Dalai Lama" to current Tenzin Gyatso article, whichever that is. (I don't agree with the current suffix, as it seems to violate the WP MoS principle of avoiding honorifics and positions in article titles unless needed for disambiguation, but WP is currently ignoring it for Tenzin Gyatso, so I won't raise a fuss right now.) Unless and until we have quotes from another incarnation of the Dalai Lama, we don't really need "Dalai Lama" to be a disambiguation article. — Jeff Q (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: Redirected to Doctor Who. — Jeffq 15:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dalek

edit
  • Delete or redirect to Doctor Who#Enemies. Dalek quotes are already there and this page is very short. --Jawr256 11:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: Redirected to Doctor Who (2 Redirects, 2 Delete/Redirects; merged descriptive text with single quote that already existed at target article). — Jeff Q (talk) 15:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Bolstering my argument about excessive expansion of WQ links, Dalek was created by a user 1 minute after editing Villain, which contained a link to Dalek. — Jeff Q (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Doctor Who because # can't function in redirect. --Aphaia 06:29, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Interesting, I didn't know that. --Jawr256 12:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect I guess, same reason as with "Doctor Who" above. Sams 20:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Doctor Who. This is another article that is unlikely ever to have more than one quote (and will never be substantial; the Daleks aren't particularly talkative or quoteworthy). — Jeff Q (talk) 10:16, 10 Jun 2005 (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.
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. — MosheZadka 14:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Leary

edit

No quotes. UDScott 20:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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. — Jeffq 04:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dhammapada

edit

I changed its status from speedy deletion candidate.--Aphaia 00:28, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • VOTE CLOSED. Results: Keep (3 Keeps, no dissent). Article name already fixed per original deletion requestor. Redirects fixed. — Jeff Q (talk) 04:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Currently it seems to be a good article (though a bit stubby). See also Talk:Dhammapada. --Aphaia 00:28, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Just tag it with {{stub}} to encourage additions. — Jeff Q (talk) 04:03, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Rmhermen 14:55, 1 Apr 2005 (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.
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: move to Die Hard: With a Vengeance. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Die Hard With a Vengeance

edit

I created it, but made a mistake in the title. There is actually already a page for the film.

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.
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: Redirect without text. — Jeffq 10:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Alfred Kinsey

edit
  • One line written in language I don't even recognise (Hebrew?). Delete unless translated and given some context. jni 17:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote closed. Result: Redirect without text (2 Deletes; 2 Redirects; no translation provided by original editor; redirect essentially accomodates all stated views). — Jeff Q (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, perhaps speedy because we have already Alfred Kinsey. --Aphaia 22:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Rmhermen 03:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect and drop the text unless translated. Looks more like Arabic to me, but that's irrelevant. If it's a quote, the English version should be added to Alfred Kinsey. I've left a note on the original creator's (IP) talk page in case the quote itself is salvageable. — Jeff Q (talk) 03:55, 29 Apr 2005 (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.
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: Kept. — Jeffq 30 June 2005 00:45 (UTC)

Dr. Frank Crane

edit

Google points to just various quotes collection (first entry is wikiquote!), article is a mess, no obvious notability... MosheZadka 04:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Vote extended; it closes: 0:00 30 June 2005 (UTC) to make clear the consensus; cleanup or delete. --Aphaia 03:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • VOTE CLOSED after extension. Result: Kept (3 Deletes; 1 official Keep, 1 Keep just past deadline that was solicited by deadline extender; article substantially improved, but still needs work based on several voters' comments; 2 of Delete votes consider cleanup an acceptable alternative). Since I did a good bit of the cleanup (and grabbed copies of the page images specifically to verify the quotes, just in case), I'll finish my suggested work. (I find it amusing to contribute to the preservation of an article whose author savaged me.) — Jeff Q (talk) 30 June 2005 00:45 (UTC)
  • Delete MosheZadka 04:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Better these quotes than the plagarized ones that JohnQ [13] calls his "Personal Quotes"!!! Photolinks on Frank Crane site have been removed, article edited. RocknRollEdder 21:24 8 June 2005 MST (UTC)
    • The human heart is a great green tree, and many strange birds come and sing in its branches; a few build nests, but most are from far lands north and south and never come again. (Frank Crane)
    • The human heart is the throne of God, the council-chamber of the devil.... (Frank Crane)
    • The quality of the author's writing is self-explanatory, the author widely quoted but lacking in volume EXACTLY because his words have not previously published ON-LINE!
  • KEEP Let's get rid of plagiarized quotes [14] and leave bona fide pre-1923 (OPEN-SOURCE!) works for public enjoyment! (UTC)
    • Comment: Vote from anon. "(UTC)" was written by its voter. --Aphaia 17:09, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Struck out illegal (forged or double) vote (see details below). — Jeff Q (talk) 13:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Transwiki to Wikisource; an editor uploaded a photo of its source; if it is not an extract, it would be suitable for Wikisource (unless they consider it unnotable). And I confess I was not impressed by this author. --Aphaia 03:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: As for user's "self-quotes", it is rude to refer it as the above way in my opinion, we encourage Wikiquote editor to create their own quotes collection as long as they make it on their user page; and it might underestimate the author in question to compare with the quotes which is thought clearly infringement of project policies.
  • PLAGARISM You obviously have no ethics against plagarism, Or you would recognize that when someone says, "These are my own original quotes." as JohnQ JohnQ [15] does, he IS taking credit for concepts that would be best cited as "SOURCE UNKNOWN". If someone sues your website, or big government censors your crap, your disregard deserves it.
  • I will find another more profitable venue for the publicity of these classic essays, and you will be left with your pathetic cyberworld virtual past time because you will never be a real-world editor.
    • Above comment was added by 24.117.255.9. I removed the bolding, as it interferes with bold-for-vote formatting. — Jeff Q (talk) 13:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comments: My, my. How to untangle this mess? It's not in my nature to be concise ☺, but let me try.
    1. The rambling text added in fits and starts by RocknRollEdder and 24.117.255.9 (possibly the same person) demonstrates only a minimal grasp of clear thinking, wiki editing, and basic concepts like "public domain" (which they incorrectly referred to as "open source"). We must try to look beyond this "blundering ignorance" (in the good Dr. Crane's words) to consider the value of the article itself. Let's not blame the article for the rudeness of its defender(s).
    2. The book probably is public-domain now, as it was published in 1919. I have reworked the article to remove all the POV editorializing, breathless emphasizing, and duplication. (Edder seems to consider a Wikiquote article as an essay opportunity.) I've left in a cleaner version of the introduction, as it is within Wikiquote practice to have a brief introduction.
    3. The article still needs some serious copyediting, as I made no attempt to compare the quotes to the photographs we have (which I've added links to so that others may do just this.) The "Clean Business" transcriptions are in the form of individual sentences on separate lines, giving no indication of where an excerpt starts and stops. If these passages are indeed entire tracts, they probably should be edited down to their essentials. There also appears to be many unnecessary hyphens in the text, which should only be there if the original spelled the words that way, not just because there was a line break. (That's elementary typography.)
    4. I have not evaluated the content of the quotes or the notability of the author. There is no Frank Crane (or "Dr. Frank Crane") page on Wikipedia at this point, so I can't tell whether it was there and deleted, or never there.
    5. If, after all this, the article survives VfD, it should be moved either to Frank Crane or Four Minute Essays. Neither the current title nor its redirect follow any Wikiquote practice.
    6. RocknRollEdder's "keep" vote, however libelous, is valid, but the second "keep" was added to his later text by 24.117.255.9. That second vote is therefore either an attempt at forgery or a double vote. Either way, it doesn't count. Again, I think this is not malevolent intent; I think it's just ignorance of wiki practices (bordering on disrespect).
    7. And when I say "libelous", I'm being literal. His accusation of plagiarism is not only raving and misattributed (my name is Jeff, not John), but unjustified. Not only do I have records to prove when I first thought of my quotes, I also protect myself (and Wikiquote, although it hardly needs it) by prefacing my personal quotes with the statement: "If anyone knows of earlier sources of any of these quotes that are essentially the same phrasing, please tell me so I can stop calling it mine." I've had no takers thus far. I feel fairly certain that our blustering Frank Crane fan not only will not, but cannot provide such evidence.
    8. Last and least, I want to thank 24.117.255.9 for his unintended compliment of considering my personal quotes good enough to be attributed to "source unknown", which implies pithy but untraceable. My quotes, however, can be traced.
    • Because of the wiki markup complexity of my commentary above, I ask that subsequent comments, if any, be added after this whole block, not interspersed between. Thank you. — Jeff Q (talk) 13:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I, as a temporal admin on English Wikipedia, abused my power a bit --- check if there is a trace of deletion of article on this topic there. I think every admin knows how to find deleted revisions from archive. And there is nothing on English Wikipedia. On the other hand w:WP:VFU says "Pages deleted prior to the database crash on 8 June 2004 are not present in the current archive". So the article in question was ether deleted before 8 June 2004 or never created. --Aphaia 14:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or further heavy cleanup and trimming. Rmhermen 17:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Rather Delete, however don't oppose to keep but cleanup. I propose pending deletion for one week for waiting for editor(s) who will clean it up willingly. If not, it should be deleted. --Aphaia 00:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but moved to Frank Crane: Though I don't find a great deal of intrinsic value in many of the quotes, and suspect the poster might be a descendent or relative of Dr. Crane, they may arguably have some historical value. The page does need further work and clean-up though, and I feel the photos of the pages should be deleted as unneeded by Wikiquote, and probably by any of the other Wikimedia projects. ~ Kalki 30 June 2005 00:22 (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.
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. — MosheZadka 12:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enya

edit

No quotes. ~ UDScott 19:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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. — MosheZadka 02:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evans

edit

No intro, no idea who that is -- there are companies called Evans, many on wp with that surname, probably many with that as first name. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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. — MosheZadka 06:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene V. Debs

edit

No quotes. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 21:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: Merged to Health. — Aphaia 00:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Faults of the rich

edit

Was nominated for VfD but not listed. Contains only two quotes (although they are on-topic). Seems a bit short and even churlish to have its own article. Maybe its content can be moved to a more general article? — Jeff Q (talk) 22:37, 19 Apr 2005 (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.
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: Merge with Stephen Covey. — Jeff Q (talk) 11:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First Things First

edit

No quotes. —LrdChaos 00:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Covey, per Invisible Sun. As I've mentioned before, I'm against book articles except when the book is so famous that it needs a separate article (e.g., The Bible). With book articles, editors have a tendency to assume no further source information need be provided, which requires verifiers to read the entire work to find the quotes cited. (Proper sourcing should include page numbers and ISBNs.) Besides, they needlessly invite copyright infringement by practically begging to be expanded beyond a select set of quotes. Although there are two co-authors cited, their names are so de-emphasized on the cover that I think a note under the heading for this book's quotes in the Covey article would be sufficient. (I do note that the co-authors, A. Roger Merrill and Rebecca Merrill, have (only) one other book credit in the Library of Congress: Life Matters: Creating a Dynamic Balance of Work, Family, Time, and Money (2003). But given that First Things First was published in 1994, they seem to have been extremely junior partners at the time.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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.
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: move to Dave Finlay. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fit Finlay

edit

No valid quotes. This appears to be another nonsense page created by this anon user. ~ UDScott 17:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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. — LrdChaos 15:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Sanders

edit

No quotes, but the main problem with this page is that it's just a copy of the IMDb bio for George Sanders. —LrdChaos 14:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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. — Jeffq 03:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost in the shell SAC

edit

No quotes. —LrdChaos 23:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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. — MosheZadka 05:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haunted Apiary

edit

The wp page is talking about an ARG, the intro is talking about an online radio game. I am unsure what this is about, but it seems suspect. If anyone can come up with a clearer explanation, please do so.

  • Vote closed: Result: keep (2 keep, no dissent, several struck out delete votes) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As a supposed "online radio play", based on its current total absence from Google, it sounds like the "viral marketing" this article talks about has Wikiquote as Patient Zero. We should sterilize this before the infection spreads. (I find it intriguing that even the supposed alternate reality game (ARG) described in the 13-month-old WP article seems to have no Google presence.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Ignore my oh-so-clever Google statement above; I screwed up the search (see below). After reviewing the WP article, its substantive history, its talk page, and several of its references (including an article from Wired), I'm inclined to think that HA has achieved enough notability to be kept. If anyone believes this whole subject is suspiciously fannish, I suggest a VfD nomination on Wikipedia, which would bring out a much larger audience to review the available material. Till then, unless provided refuting data, I'll support this article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save. I'm not sure what the above users mean by an absence of google presence (as you can see here: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-14,GGLD:en&q=haunted+apiary ). As to the confusion between online radio play and ARG, the Haunted Apiary was definitely an ARG, which used a series of radio-drama like snippets to progress the storyline.
  • Save. Haunted Apiary served as both an ARG and a radio drama; the story was told through the radio drama, which was unlocked by playing the game. An online radio game would be one of many accurate explanations.
  • Keep. The "radio play" (a term meaning radio drama, BTW) is what the ARG was built around. The drama's episodes can be found at http://www.ilovebees.com/humptydumpty.html --OGoncho 05:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • After checking almost 20 of the WAV files provided at the "humptydumpty" page, I have to say that they are singularly unimpressive to someone who has no knowledge of the material (and, in fact, sound rather inane). Nor do they seem to include the actual quotes listed in the article. (I didn't listen to every clip, but I did look at every "title" and compare it to the listed quotes, with no apparent connection.) It might help this article's case if a citation of the specific quote samples was given, assuming they're available. Supporters should consider that, for most VfD-nominated articles, they are trying to convince a community, most of whose members likely have no prior knowledge of the subject. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. — Jeffq 07:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hugo Weaving

edit

Another quoteless encyclopedia stub, from The Matrix perhaps. Seems like JeffQ is right... also, there's a wikipedia article on him anyway... I guess we do need to find a way to remedy this issue... Sams 13:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: move. — MosheZadka 03:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hymn to Satan

edit

Full text of a poem. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: Redirect to Inuyasha. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 12:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

InuYasha

edit

No quotes. ~ UDScott 21:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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. — LrdChaos 20:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Jawed Angels

edit

No quotes. Aside from its creation, the only activity on this page was to add a WP link and a tagline, which is the closest thing to a quote from the film. —LrdChaos 15:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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. — MosheZadka 16:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Thompson (attorney)

edit

no intro article assumedly transwikied from Wikipedia. "Email" parts contain other mail to this person, and if they can be safely released under GFDL [but I wonder] or PD, the whole part might be better to be a transwiki candidate to Wikisource. --Aphaia 13:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply] 

Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2007 17:02:39 -0400
From: "Scott Ramsoomair" <sramsoomair@yahoo.com>
Subject: My email evidence
To: "Jeff Q" <jeffq@fakeaddress.com>
 
This is parody again, in the guise of another ghost writer,
to demonstrate how useless emails are as verifiable sources
of quotations.
 
-Dream on, space cowboy.
Scott Ramsoomair.
 
Copies: Future President Hillary Clinton, Senator Lieberman,
        Senator Brownback, Senator Santorum
Of course, I just created the above from the source text provided on Ramsoomair's website, but who says he didn't do the same to Thompson? We should stick to published and audiovisually recorded works as source material. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep helps show how much of a lying scumbag he is. fluke 17:35, 14 August 2005 (EST)
  • Keep Added links to the 80 minute interview on chatterboxgames and a few quotes from that interview. Other people can add more. 69.174.69.0 18:49, 14 August 2005 (EST)
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.

Jacqueline

edit
See Sharmell.
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: move to Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jaden Korr

edit

Non-notable. Contains quotes by a small person in the Star Wars universe. If we go on adding quotes by every person in Star Wars, we're gonna have a tough time.--Shreshth91 07:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: redirect to Jalal al-Din Muhammad Rumi. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jalal ad-Din Rumi

edit

Quoteless short essay on Jalal al-Din Muhammad Rumi, who already has substantial Wikiquote and Wikipedia articles. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: no consensus. — Jeffq 10:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Cramer

edit

Was nominated but not listed for VfD. Cramer is a CNBC pundit; quote page has only one quote (with QuickTime video link source). The single quote doesn't really fit in any theme except something like "outrageous statements from pundits". — Jeff Q (talk) 23:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: no consensus (1 Delete; 1 Keep). — Jeff Q (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. This may be augmented by quotes from Cramer shows Kudlow & Cramer or Mad Money. It could also be moved into a Pundits or similar article. — Jeff Q (talk) 23:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I tagged this one and forgot to add it here. If someone expands it I have no problem with the subject. Rmhermen 02:42, 20 Apr 2005 (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.
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: Kept.. — Aphaia 09:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Ziman

edit

This is a borderline case. There is no wikipedia article, no homepage, but he was a multi-disciplinarian who wrote some books which were published and sold. The book is mentioned on wikipedia, in w:Scientific enterprise. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 20:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Vote Closed: Result: Kept. (4 keeps, no dissent) --Aphaia 09:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He was an old man (and those people tend to have no webpage), retired several years ago (Honoured Professor of Bristol University); nine of his books are available on amazon.com and three of them is available in Japanese[16]. In my criteria, notable enough. --Aphaia 04:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I would also agree that he's notable enough. However, is he really the author of those 2 quotes there that are attributed to him, or perhaps their origin is different? User:Lucky-luke, where did you get it from? Sams 07:59, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep But move the two attributed quotes about a scientist and a philosoher to a more prober place. Couldn't find a either one as atributed to Ziman via Google. Both seem to be well known and old, but no author was listed or author was "unknown". I found this variatoin too: an expert is one who knows more and more about less and less which was attributed to Nicholas Murray Butler [17]. I added one verified Ziman quote with a source, so there should be some justification for a Wikiquote page. Lack of Wikipedia article is IMO failing of Wikipedia and should be remedied. - The Merciful 27 June 2005 13:00 (UTC)
  • Keep. Apparently has sufficient notability; good sourcing on quotes. Could use some cleanup as described above, but shouldn't affect vote. — Jeff Q (talk) 28 June 2005 04:37 (UTC)
  • Keep there's a wikipedia article now :) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 11:20 (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.
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: Redirected to Humor. — Jeff Q (talk) 30 June 2005 00:34 (UTC)

Jokes

edit

One anonymous quote. I suspect it was coined by its contributor. --Aphaia 15:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Vote closed. Result: Redirected. Rationale: With 2 Redirect and 3 Delete votes, there is no consensus for either specific action, but doing nothing would thwart all five votes. Most seem satisified to have the original White quote in Humor, making this article redundant. Therefore, there is consensus to remove the current quote, but no consensus to delete, making a redirect the most appropriate action that supports all five intents unless and until another vote is taken (after some time has passed). — Jeff Q (talk) 30 June 2005 00:34 (UTC)
    • Redirect to humor. And the quote is a mangling of E.B. White's "Analyzing humor is like dissecting a frog. Few people are interested and the frog dies of it." Rmhermen 16:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Redirect. and thanks for enlightment. ;-) --Aphaia 16:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Redirect. Thanks Rmhermen. I think it could be done instantly, without a vote - no info that isn't already on wikiquote would be lost, and everything remains in history anyway - therefore it's pretty trivial editing. Sams 17:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Merge and delete. If this were an article of general jokes, we might need to consider whether Wikiquote should have a joke collection. But since its only quote is a joke about humor, merging it with the existing Humor article seems adequate. However, redirecting "Jokes" would suggest to editors that "Humor" is a place for adding general jokes. Do we want this? — Jeff Q (talk) 20:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Merge what? An inaccurate paraphrase? Why? Although adding the quote from E.B. White's article would be good. As for redirecting vs. deleting: I agree that the issue of having a wikiquote jokes collection page is unclear (e.g. one might claim that having jokes is similar to having proverbs), and we might want to discuss this... But while it's pending, or if we decide that jokes don't belong here, I think that it's better to use redirect instead of delete, so it won't be created again by someone else. Sams 21:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Oops! My mistake. I mean copy the White version, not the anonymous one. Which means I vote Delete for this article. I think no article is better than a misleading redirect. If someone recreates it, we speedy-delete it per policy (case #5), assuming we vote to delete it the first time. — Jeff Q (talk) 23:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Well, both "no article" and "misleading redirect" aren't good options. But an appropriate redirect might be useful. If you think that redirecting to Humor is misleading (I think that perhaps you're overstating this possible problem, but anyone's guess is as good as mine), we could redirect it to the future/archived version of this discussion, or to our future policy article that says that jokes don't belong in wikiquote. Sams 23:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • Comment: redirect to the discussion exact is impossible currently (redirect to WQ:VFDA is okay), and if we decide "no jokes, thank you" as policy, it would be better to have redirect to this project document or just "What Wikiquote is not". But before decision, we need to talk.--Aphaia 00:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
              • If what you wanted with having separate VFDA pages for each article that is deleted is used, then this discussion will appear in a page of its own in the future, and we can redirect it there, no? Sams 01:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
                • If this is perceived as a real issue, it deserves much more visibility than being buried in a VfD archive, however it may be linked. And we should never redirect a main articlespace title to a discussion page; it's ugly and violates the principle of least astonishment. — Jeff Q (talk) 21:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
                  • OK, agreed, redirecting to a discussion was a bad idea. I also note that there're some jokes on wikipedia, e.g. if you start at w:Category:Jokes. I think that in general if any wikimedia project should have whole jokes in it, it should be either wikiquote, or some separate wikijokes project (though the jokes in wikipedia to demonstrate the point of the articles also work nicely). I don't think that the policy on jokes should be decided by the wikiquote community, but by other wikimedia communities as well. Anyway, nobody tried to add jokes to wikiquote so far anyway, we're just contemplating the issue that Jeffq brought up. I still think that it's a little better to redirect instead of delete (to the humor article, unless there're better suggestions). Sams 22:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've put in the best phrased White quote I could find with some attribution at Humor. MosheZadka 18:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Do we really want an article that invites everyone to post their favorite knock-knock joke? "Funny" is subjective; this seems to open the door to plentiful disputes and major editing headaches. --RPickman 19:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Having an article with jokes is an idea that so far hasn't been advocated by anyone, including the person who created this article that has nothing in it. The only options considered above are whether it's better for now to delete or redirect it, to prevent it from being created again. Since I saw mentioned regarding some other VfD entries that it's better to redirect rather than delete, I guessed that it's better here too. It's weird that no one bothered to mention why they prefer delete to redirect... But whatever, it's such a minor issue, doesn't matter either way... Sams 28 June 2005 21:14 (UTC)
      • Excuse me, Sams, but I did mention why I felt it was better to delete than redirect, on 15 June: "I think no article is better than a misleading redirect"; i.e., a redirect misleads, whereas a delete gives the correct impression that we do not have a joke collection. It's the principle of least astonishment again. — Jeff Q (talk) 30 June 2005 00:22 (UTC)
  • Delete. Concur with RPickman. --Aphaia 28 June 2005 15:51 (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.
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. ~ Kalki 19:09, 11 March 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Journey to the East

edit
  • No idea what this is or who it is supposed to be a quote from. Rmhermen 16:10, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This has been made into a properly labeled page. ~ Kalki
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.
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: Kept. — Jeffq 07:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jules de Gaultier

edit

Just one unsourced quote, no wp article, no intro, google hits are many -- all point to this one quote (many of them mirrors of wikiquote). ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 18:30 (UTC)

  • Undecided. I'm confused that a published French philospher doesn't have an en:WP article. I'm also concerned about Aphaia's citations of notability, as they are only in French and Italian. More evidence of notability would be helpful, especially if in English. Is this the same Jules de Gaultier who is a critic? — Jeff Q (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 Just war theory, redirect Just war, delete Just War Theory. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just war

edit

Redirect. Just war → Just War Theory → Just war theory. I'm not sure if it is a good idea to turn it into a redirect to "Just war theory". --Aphaia 17:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The correct name is either "Just war" or "Just war theory", and the latter is better imho because it's a common phrase. All other capitalized names, i.e. "Just War" and "Just War Theory" and "Just War theory" are wrong. The redirects were created because I wanted to conform with the wikipedia article name, and they changed the name there a couple of times. This was a bad idea though, as the people there seem to be clueless about the correct use of capital letters. The current name on wikipedia is "Just War theory", which doesn't have a wikiquote redirect, so the wikiquote template box doesn't work in the other direction (it works from wq to wp because wp has a redirect article for the correct name). iddo999 22:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote closed. Result: keep Just war theory as article, redirect Just war to that article, delete Just War Theory only if doing so automatically goes to article, and verify WP and WQ link boxes correctly link to their counterparts, per vote analysis below. Final report will follow shortly. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Final report: with "Just War Theory" deleted, all capitalization versions properly present the sole article within Wikiquote. No variation except the actual article title works from WP to WQ, but the only way to fix this is to create redirects from every variation that WP may have, which isn't usual practice, besides which the current WP title is "Just War theory", which didn't even exist as a redirect here. I've verified that the WQ→WP and WP→WQ article links are now completely working, so I'll leave "JWT" deleted unless someone objects. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all the redirects, except for the "just war" redirect. iddo999 22:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Just war", delete "Just War Theory" and "Just War theory". I've heard the phrase "just war"; I've never heard "just war theory", although I can believe it's common. But I'm certain that many who might think of looking for quotes on this topic would enter "just war", and that's one purpose of a redirect. As for the capitalization problem, if we delete all versions but one, I believe MediaWiki will automatically present the correct article even if the capitalization is wrong. (If we have two versions, I think it fails because it doesn't know which to assume.) If there's a problem with linking to Wikipedia, we can either use {{wikiquotepar}} or, better yet, move the WP article to the correct capitalization. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps we should keep exactly one redirect, between "just war" and "just war theory", depending on which one of these would contain the article. I personally think that "just war theory" is better, as in the wikipedia article, but it's not a big deal either way. iddo999 14:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I'm saying is that there is no need for multiple capitalization versions of both phrases. One "Just war" redirect to "Just war theory", and no other capitalization variations, should have exactly the same result as if we'd had every likely capitalization variation of both phrases. In fact, it's better to have only the two, because redirects display the line "Redirected from...", whereas the MediaWiki-driven matching will take you straight to the correct form, regardless of the way you capitalized the phrase. But you need to have only one variation per phrase for this to work. Example: enter "Just War", and you'll see that MediaWiki assumes you meant "Just war" (note that it says "Redirected from Just war", not "Redirected from Just War"), because there's only a single variation of that phrase as an article title. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Clarification: When I said keep "Just war", I meant as a redirect. When I said delete "Just War Theory" and "Just War theory", I was implicitly agreeing with whoever wrote the paragraph above the "vote closes" that "Just war theory" be kept as the main article. However, I don't really care which of "Just war" or "Just war theory" is primary, so long as we have only one article and one redirect. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Apologies. I wrote the comment above, and forgot to sign it when signing my vote. I also created this page, btw:) Thanks for the info on mediawiki auto redirecting capital letters. As I mentioned, I like the "just war theory" title better than "just war", but "just war" is also good. Please add more quotes there, instead of wasting energy to determine the correct name:) iddo999 00:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Just war," delete "Just War theory," and redirect from "Just war theory" (only because it is listed this way in WP and people might search for it here after reading that article. BUt I would agree that the proper title for this set of quotes is merely "Just war." UDScott 19:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VOTE ANALYSIS: This is our month for confusing votes. First, allow me to summarize this vote's context. The 3 existing articles on WQ are, as Aphaia listed:

Wikipedia's article is "Just War theory" (which doesn't exist here), they have a mess of redirects (in both senses of the word "mess"), and we don't know what the final name of their article will be. As best I understand our discussion, we have the following votes:

  • iddo999, Jeff Q: Just war theory is best article name; redirect Just war to it; delete all other redirects.
  • UDScott: Just war is best article name; redirect Just war theory to it; delete Just War theory. (Both iddo999 and Jeff Q consider this article/redirect combination acceptable, but it would entail an article-title swap, which seems unwise since we might want to swap it back if WP changes their minds again.)
  • Aphaia: No actual vote, but the nomination of Just war for deletion, plus asking about making this a direct redirect to Just war theory, implies favoring iddo999 and Jeff Q's position on these 2 pages, with no comment on any variations.

I believe the following can be extracted from this:

  • Most (3-1) want Just war theory as the article (the current state), and Just war to redirect to it.
  • Half want Just War Theory deleted. (UDScott may have meant "Just War Theory" when he said delete the non-existent "Just War theory"; that would make it 3-0 [Aphaia not commenting].) As long as it exists, however, it may cause MediaWiki auto-redirection problems for the many variations people might try.
  • Most (3-0; Aphaia not commenting) don't want a Just War theory redirect. (If the above possible interpretation of UDScott's vote is accurate, this one is 2-0, with 2 not specifically commenting on this variation. But nobody suggested creating it, either, so it should probably stay non-existent.)

Therefore, I propose to close this vote with the following interpretation and subsequent actions:

  1. Redirect Just war to Just war theory.
  2. Delete Just War Theory and test all possible capitalizations for auto-redirection. If they work, we didn't need it anyway. If they don't, restore "Just War Theory".
  3. Ensure that both the WP and WQ articles link directly to the current articles on the other project, using the {{projectpar}} templates.

I'm asking my fellow sysops (who happen to be the voters as well) to review my analysis to see if they concur. Unless someone objects before 24 November 2005, 12:00 (UTC), I will close this vote with the above interpretation and take the stated actions. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the votes and analysis: you are right, it is confusing, but it seems you have summarised it correctly. Thanks! ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. — Jeffq 03:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa Mikey

edit

No quotes. —LrdChaos 23:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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. — MosheZadka 6 July 2005 07:03 (UTC)

Kate Clinton

edit

Seems to have no quote. --Aphaia 6 July 2005 06:24 (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.
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. — LrdChaos 15:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Harris

edit

While this is a real and notable person, there aren't any quotes by her, just one about her. —LrdChaos 14:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: no consensus. — Jeffq 08:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Whitehorn

edit

No wp article, google hits point at one PubMed publication and a personal blog one the first page. It could still be she's notable, but it doesn't seem so. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 08:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closes: 19 Oct 2005 12:00 (UTC)
    • Vote extended to 5 December 2005, 12:00 (UTC). I wanted to close this overdue vote, but I don't feel comfortable interpreting the dialog. There's 1 official Delete, 1 "inclined to keep", and perhaps an implicit delete from the nominator, but it's somewhat unclear. (Moshe usually registers a clear vote, so I'm inclined to interpret his lack of vote as a query for information.) Therefore, I've extended the close date for 1 more week. If no clearer votes are registered, I will consider the current state insufficient consensus. Two deletes to 1 keep, even when unambiguous, is barely a consensus, so I feel it needs to be clear to call it as anything but a no-consensus keep (especially when I've registered the only official Delete). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • VOTE CLOSED. Result: no consensus (default keep), per above paragraph. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided. I did find a 1970 book, Observations, by a "Katherine Whitehorn" on Amazon UK, but not enough information to indicate if it's the same person. The original article was created along with a bunch of others which were merely single quotes and links to quote-fox, our infamous quote spammer. There's enough circumstantial evidence to make me want to vote "keep", but we want reliable sources and notability. Do any Wikiquotians have a copy of or access to Observations? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: though I found any copy of her book, but found a quote spam on blog comment areas attributed to her, and another quote on a Japanese quote page[19]. The site owner said he found a quote from her on a quotation book in English. I concur with Moshe - she could be notable but not so much perhaps like Nadine Gordiner or other authors. Unless we decide to delete all quote-fox spamming, I incline to keep it currently. --Aphaia 06:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thanks, yes, when I don't vote I mean not to vote -- sorry for not making it clearer. I usually try to vote, because I know how small the quorums usually are and I want to make the problem less acute. However, in this case, I felt I'm really not sure what to do. Jeff implied that she did publish a book, which is usually enough to determine notability here. However, nobody is sure if it the same person, even, which is sad. If anyone has a copy of the book, and wants to add quotations from it to the article, I think the best thing would be to add a "...is an author who wrote...", see if there's any bio-details on the jacket, and move the quote to talk pending some clearer attribution/sourcing. Barring that, I'm really not sure what would be the best for the project. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. — Jeff Q (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Hovind

edit

This is a Wikipedia article, and Wikipedia already has one. This one appears to be an essay on Hovind's views, which is not the purpose of Wikiquote. I don't know if it is material considered undesirable or too detailed for the WP article, but that's irrelevant. We need quotes and only quotes. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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.
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: no consensus. — Jeffq 11:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knock knock jokes

edit

No meaningful content. ~ UDScott 17:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed. Result: no consensus (1 Delete; 1 Keep), which defaults to a keep. I guess we'll see how this works out. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless viable quotes are added. ~ UDScott 17:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We addressed a similar situation with Jokes back in June 2005. The consensus was not to have a separate article, but we were undecided on whether to delete it or redirect it to Humor, the latter of which was done. This subcategory of jokes is perhaps more manageable. Knock-knock jokes are a very quotable cultural phenomenon, but there seems to be a community reluctance to get into the joke-catalog business. The lack of sources is also especially problematic, although this could be addressed by finding some joke books from which to cite. Finally, if we keep this article, we need to figure out how to format it, as each full quote will be exactly 5 separate lines, the first two of which are identical and therefore space-wasting. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete. The page is meager right now, but it'll grow. Jokes have as much right to be in WikiQuote as proverbs, which are a good example of how unsourceable quotes can be good, useful content. --Eliazar 04:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. — Jeffq 03:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle XY

edit

No quotes. —LrdChaos 23:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: Kept; lack of consensus. --Aphaia 03:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Last Words in Shakespeare

edit

Seems better to put those quotes on relevant plays' articles. MosheZadka 04:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Vote closed: Kept; lack of consensus to delete (2 deletes, 3 keep). --Aphaia 03:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete MosheZadka 04:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge to Hamlet, if the article has this quote not yet. --Aphaia 04:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Once withdrawn, because the article in question is still editing; perhaps I will vote again at the end of discussion. --Aphaia 16:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I've added the quote to Hamlet already MosheZadka 06:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --Clotten 21:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The idea is this: I am one of those people who would love a better online source for Shakespeare's texts. Death is one of the largest ideas in all of Shakespeare (with maybe Time, rule, and the idea of unions of love as other candidates), and it is not at all unreasonable to give such a theme it's own page. If all of those ideas were explored in any depth, the Shakespeare page would be unreadably-long. At the very least, give me (and the wiki population) time to explore the page a little before we just delete it (I only made it a number of hours ago). --Clotten 07:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The point, I believe, is that if we had a "theme in word" policy, wikiquote would explode from the sheer number of articles (each decent TV show has lots of themes, each movie, etc. etc.). We are happy to have those quotes on the specific plays in which they happen. Arranging quotes by play makes more sense. If you want to have a review of a "Death in Shakespeare", please feel free to write such an article on wikipedia, using quotes from various pages on wikiquote as reference. By the way, is there a reason for you not to add the quotes to the plays' pages too, if you insist of adding them to this article? What you are doing now creates a burden on the maintainers to copy quotes. MosheZadka 07:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • You and I have different paradigms; either a page on Shakespeare's characters' last words is worthwhile or it is not. You have no empirical proof and neither do I. Therefore, we simply need more feedback: if other people can help us by giving their opinions and one of us is supported by a majority, then the person will be shown to be correct (at least in a limited sense) by the Wiki population. And then, even if a later population disagrees, at least they can delete it. --Clotten 08:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Moreover, Shakespeare is one of the largest subjects of attention, both academic and popular, of any writer in Western history. Surely if anyone is worthy of detailed, specific and extensive pages, it is someone like Shakespeare I'm going to sleep, so at the very least please do not delete this anytime soon.--Clotten 08:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment:(To Clotten) I would be happy you estimate our formatting canon on voting instead introduce your own and you read our rule. Vote will closes two weeks later as written so on the above. --Aphaia 11:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Sorry about that; I should have read over the rules before commenting here. That being said, I have fleshed the page out considerably, and now I think that it can be judged on its own merits.--Clotten 18:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Don't mind and I accept your apoligy willingly. I feel I can guess how you were upset when you found it was listed on VFD - every editor have such experience. And again, thank you for your understanding. --Aphaia 19:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • It was judged on its own merits ab-initio. You were the one who insisted on judging it on extrinsic merits ("Moreover, Shakespeare is one of the largest subjects of attention, both academic and popular, of any writer in Western history), a rather shaky foundation. I noticed you still insist on not adding the quotes to the plays' pages. Why is that? MosheZadka 04:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • I think the point is that the quotes are not of much interest on their own, hidden in a mass of famous one-line sound bites. However, when put together, each different quote reinforces the next, creating a page that is much stronger that the sum of its separated parts. Think about it this way: would the Shakespeare page be improved if all of the quote pages for his individual plays were merged into it? And, to stay relevant, what about the Famous Last Words page? Why isn't that page deleted and all the individual quotes added to the speakers' pages? Let me attempt to supply you with some proof, so we can base this conversation on something more than our conflicting opinions. In The Arden Dictionary of Shakespeare Quotations (1999), "death" is the second largest topic in the index, after time and before love. With the possible addition of language, those topics are literally the biggest and most-explored ideas in Shakespeare. If you absolutely insist, I would not mind creating a page for Shakespeare's quotes about death and adding the Last Words to that page. But, otherwise, the fact remains that this is no fringe topic. And, given that the page is well constructed page that includes both very popular and famous quotes with less famous but revealing, and, come on, interesting quotes, I once again propose to you that it is a worthwhile bit of organization. And, to get away from the merits of the page and to touch upon your personal comments, I'm not insisting on not putting the quotes on other pages. If the last words page loses the vote and then I remake the page anyway and don't put the quotes on the already-existing Shakespeare pages, then I would be "insisting". But please don't try to make me look spiteful. I most certainly will add the quotes to the pages from their respective plays if this page is deleted. --Clotten 21:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: It's an interesting compendium and that's Wikiquote's purpose. (I'm still new though.. am I mistaken?) --Slac 16:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, with some reservations. Might make a good subcategory in Famous last words, assuming fictional characters are permissible there. --RPickman 19:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Richard Allen 00:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) An interesting collection. Yes, could also link from other sections. I like the multiple-link features of Wikipedia - I do not believe it should be hierarchical, like printed encylopedias.
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.
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: moved to Monument inscriptions. — MosheZadka 30 June 2005 12:02 (UTC)

Lincoln Memorial

edit

Only one quote can possibly be here. Maybe we should have a "Quotes on memorials" theme or something where this can go into. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 30 June 2005 12:02 (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.
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. — Jeffq 13:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Banks

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 13:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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. — MosheZadka 7 July 2005 14:31 (UTC)

London

edit

There was one quote which I moved because it was unattributed. Now there are none. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 14:31 (UTC)

  • Vote closed: Result: keep (4 keep, no dissent)
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 14:31 (UTC)
  • Comment: You could attribute it to "anonymous" or "unknown", it seems a haste decision. And it is not considered as copyvio, you needn't remove it, in my opinion. --Aphaia 7 July 2005 14:34 (UTC)
    • Comment: I moved it to talk, not removed it. I suspect it is a personal quote. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 14:36 (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.
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: redirect to Drugs. ~ Kalki 11:30, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

LSD

edit

Is not a quote, and already has a Wikipedia article ~ Jman 06:13, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Seconded. Quadell 14:09, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Thirded. Anusien
I turned this into a redirect to Drugs, for now. I think eventually quotations by famous people specifically about LSD are a likelihood, but have no particular inclination to find them. ~ Kalki 11:30, 15 Dec 2004 (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.
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: move to Lucien Lévy-Bruhl. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lucian Lévi-Bruhl

edit

No intro, no wp article, google search points to this quote over and over again (some from wq mirrors). ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 12:11 (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.
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: Kept. — Jeffq 07:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World

edit

No quote since its creation at 20:11, 24 April 2005 --Aphaia 7 July 2005 11:18 (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.
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: Kept. --Aphaia 14:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Million Dollar Baby

edit

Completely empty article except for Wikipedia link. Nothing added in week since creation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: Kept. — Jeffq 05:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Modest Mouse

edit

On talk an anon pointed out those lyrics are copywritten. Some quotes seems to be a whole of lyrics. Or not (hence within a limit of Fair Use). Any input will be welcome. --Aphaia 02:32, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed. Result: Kept (3 Keeps; no dissent; problem quotes removed). — Jeff Q (talk) 05:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems like fair use to me, at least most of it. There are other pages with even more than this one, see for example Talk:Leonard_Cohen. Perhaps we need a policy on at what stage exactly do we delete/modify a page with lyrics, i.e. if we should do it only after a formal complaint from a record label, etc. I think that there're cases where the lyrics are technically copywritten, but the copyrights holders don't have any objections to having the lyrics on websites - I know that this is true with some books for example - therefore automatically deleting lyrics would be wrong. Sams 10:57, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Everything published received copyright protection under modern international treaties; however, these are fair use samples. The complete lyrics to a song would not qualify as fair use and we should not encourage that. Rmhermen 17:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've removed quotes from 3 songs that seemed to me to be too much for comfort, but I've also suggested that the editors can restore a tighter, more pithy portion of those songs to avoid copyvio concerns. The other songs I checked seemed easily within common fair use expectations. — Jeff Q (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. — Jeffq 15:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neglected Mario Characters

edit
  • Vote closed. Result: keep (3 Keeps; 1 Delete; 1 Neutral). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This wikiquote page not really needed. - SPKx 01:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see why the above user feels this page "is not really needed." This seems to be a legitimate webcomic, and the quotes seem fine. It might need some expansion, but it certainly seems to be enough to warrant having a page here. ~ UDScott 13:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ummmm....I created the NC wikipedia page and I should be qualified enough to decide whether or not a wikiquote page is really required for NC. - SPKx 00:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • SPKx, creators of Wikipedia and Wikiquote articles do not have any special rights or authority over their content or appropriateness. Wikipedians and Wikiquotians, as a community, determine whether an article should or shouldn't exist, subject only to basic project guidelines. The best way to make an argument for or against an article is to cite specific information that would persuade others to agree with your opinion. Argument from authority usually doesn't work well on wikis. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Agree with above user; seems legitimate. ~ Jesussaves 23:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The comic certainly appears notable, and while the page could definitely use expanding, I don't see why it shouldn't stay. —LrdChaos 19:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. The current content of the article seems fairly inane, but that alone isn't a reason to delete an article, merely one to improve or stub-tag it (the latter of which I just did). The real questions are (A) "Is this a notable subject?" and (B) "Is it likely to have enough quotes for a minimal article?". I don't know enough to answer (B), which seems to be the basis of SPKx's objection, but other webcomics seem to provide enough quotes for their subjects. As far as (A) notability goes, w:Sprite comic claims that this is the "first well documented sprite comic", but the WP article doesn't currently list a single reliable source, making this assertion highly questionable. (The webcomic itself only hits 224K in Alexa, although it has a solid Google presence.) If I was sure this couldn't be remedied, I'd vote delete (and nominate the WP article for deletion as well). But I'm not, so I'm going to remain on the fence for this one. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. — Jaxl 21:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Osmosis Jones

edit

No quotes from the film, just a single tagline. —LrdChaos 01:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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. —LrdChaos 19:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patsy Kensit

edit

Alleged quotes are just another pointless creation from User:Gary Kirk. InvisibleSun 17:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, now that it is at least a minimal stub for the British actress/pop singer. I've replaced the vanity text from Kirk with information readily available in the Wikipedia article. I don't normally do this for garbage articles about real people, as I have no interest in effectively being directed by insincere editors to create articles they want, but I wasn't about to give Kirk the satisfaction of blatant vanity. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, Geoff, Patsy did actually did say that to me, and, being American as you are, you obviously don't see w:Emmerdale, where her character regularly uses the expression BITCH. Please refer to me as either User:Gary Kirk or King Garald; "Kirk" is unacceptable I'm afraid. Gary Kirk 20:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gary Kirk, "Bitch" is no more a reasonable quote than "Hello" or "What?". As far as Kensit making citable quotes about you, sorry, but I don't believe you, especially given the contempt you've demonstrated toward this project so far. If you have a reliable source you can quote from, please include it when you add such a quote. Otherwise I will remove it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like Geoff Q, he's well nice to me :). "King Garald" is merely a bit upset that the fact Patsy Kensit called him "handsome" means nothing to WikiQuote. Malcolm Hebden called him "gorgeous", but he is certainly not proud of that. Horatio Apple 20:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, now that it has been updated. ~ UDScott 13:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. — Jeffq 07:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bettany

edit

No quote since its creation at 05:06, 1 May 2005.--Aphaia 7 July 2005 11:18 (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.
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. — Jeffq 13:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Sally

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 12:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: moved. — Rmhermen 14:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposed_new_main_page, Alternative_proposed_new_main_page, Two_column_proposed_new_main_page

edit
  • Left over from early days. I would suspect that they are not necessary. Maybe they could be moved to Wikiquote: if they have historical interest. Rmhermen 21:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikiquote: namespace. If I understand Wiki practice sufficiently, we don't necessarily (and may not want to) delete historical pages like this, but they probably shouldn't be in the article (quote) namespace. (Not that they're likely to interfere with a quote article. It's more the principle.) — Jeff Q (talk) 23:23, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Moved. Rmhermen 14:27, 4 Apr 2005 (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.
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: Proverbs turned to redirect to List of proverbs. — Aphaia 00:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proverbs, Book of Proverbs

edit

Supposingly a copy from The Bible.

  • Delete or Redirect to The Bible: because currently this is a dull copy from the Bible. Unless we determine to have a page for each book of the Bible, I think this page is better to be deleted or turned into redirect. --Aphaia 03:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect Proverbs to List of proverbs; redirect Book of Proverbs to The Bible for now although I can see that page needing to be subdivided in the future. Rmhermen 15:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as Rmhermen states. Let he who addeth much material to The Bible article bringeth up the subject of dispersal at a future date. — Jeff Q (talk) 05:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Both were turned to redirects: Proverbs to List of proverbs; redirect Book of Proverbs to The Bible. --Aphaia 00:26, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: Kept. — Aphaia 17:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rajinikanth

edit

Also a redirect to it, Chandramukhi Super Star Rajni. Since February 2005, there is no quote. --Aphaia 5 July 2005 00:18 (UTC)

  • Delete unless someone adds quote(s) before voting closure. --Aphaia 5 July 2005 00:18 (UTC)
  • Comment: there are a bunch of quotes in an interview, but I do not know the language. Anyone cares to translate? ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 5 July 2005 01:52 (UTC)
    • Comment: In case anyone is looking for translators, it looks like Tamil ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 5 July 2005 06:57 (UTC)
  • Delete unless quotes (in English!) added. If users are so interested in quotes from a person, they should have the courtesy to create a stub article with at least one quote. We have an overabundance of page creators; what we really need is quote adders and sourcers. (Apologies for the rant.) — Jeff Q (talk) 5 July 2005 04:07 (UTC)
  • Keep. The page has been cleaned up, and a couple of quotes (in English ! :) have been added. I'll try and add some more soon. -- Amar 7 July 2005 10:23 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why not. And thank you for your contribution, Amar! --Aphaia 7 July 2005 10:28 (UTC)
  • Keep: Thanks for your work, Amar ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 10:33 (UTC)
    • Comment: Would you mind adding in the original Tamil, not just the transliteration? From my own experience, native speakers sometimes have a hard time understanding transliterations. Thanks, ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 10:33 (UTC)
      • I added sometimes original text, and didn't transliteration. (see Mobile Suit Gundam for example). Do you think it is improved if transliteration is also added? --Aphaia 7 July 2005 10:37 (UTC)
        • Definitely! I enjoy knowing how to say things I don't understand -- my friends keep teaching me Russian quotes. I have a hard time pronouncing Japanese if it's not transliterated. :) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 10:46 (UTC)
        • I'll second the Tamil. Not only does it help Tamil readers, adding to the potential pool of translators, but it also encourages English speakers like me to get browsers and fonts that support non-Latin characters (which puts pressure on browser vendors to include them in their standard products). Besides, it looks cool. ☺ — Jeff Q (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: kept. — Jeffq 04:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Morrison

edit

This particular Robert Morrison is non-notable. Wikipedia does not have an article on him. The Wikiquote article just points to a disambig. page of which this Robert Morrison is not on. Also, if you google his quote all you get is two websites which probably copy Wikquote. --Hottentot Nominated by 24.4.227.36, 02:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed. Result: kept (2 Keeps; 1 implicit Delete). ~ Jeff Q (talk)
  • Keep his picture appears on w:Phi Delta Theta, so it seems there is historical data on him, and a founder of an encyclopedic society is notable enough, I believe. However, the wikipedia link should probably be removed. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: w:Robert Morrison is now a redirect to the Scottish missionary, with w:Robert Morrison (disambiguation) as the dab page. Therefore, I've fixed the WQ article's link go to the dab page and have added an entry for the fraternity founder. I've also fixed the WQ link from Wikipedia to clarify that the "quote collection" is for the ΦΔΘ guy. I have no current opinion on Morrison's notability; I just wanted to ensure the appropriateness of the links. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if this quote can be attributed to him. Concur with Moshe; A founder of a known society deserves an article. As for scotish mission, it seems to aim to another R. Morrison, a Scotland born protestant preacher and chinologist . --Aphaia 20:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: redirect to Advertising slogans. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Leslie Joseph Hooker

edit

Now redirect to Leslie Joseph Hooker (and double redirect to another page). I am not sure if we need a redirect with style. --Aphaia 04:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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. — MosheZadka 14:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spaced

edit

No quotes. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 21:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: move to Wikisource. —Kalki 18:07, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Speeches

edit

Ich Bin ein Berliner should be named Ich bin ein Berliner maybe someone can rename it instead of deleting it, so that the content don't have to be pasted 80.143.249.15 16:38, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I was about to do a page creation and redirect, but I propose instead that all the speeches be moved to Wikisource, which seems more appropriate a place for entire speeches. I will post this proposal there as well. If no one objects to this, I might move them all sometime next week, or soon after. —Kalki 17:20, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
It would be better to rename the page before moving it to wikisource, so that you don't forget to replace "Bin" with "bin" in the heat of the moment. It isn't much effort is it? And if you rename it you should also delete Yes! My name is Pierre Elliot Trudeau which is a blanked vandalism site 80.143.246.58 15:15, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I intend to create pages at WIkisource that are arranged to fit in with the structures that are evolving there, with links to them within the Wikiquote pages of the authors of the speeches. —Kalki 18:07, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
MOST of the speeches have now been transferred to Wikisource, but there are still a few loose ends and bit of tidying up of links to do. — Kalki 20:16, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I do not intend to delete the pages that contained speeches, and have posted transfer notices with links on most of them. I do intend to eventually delete List of speeches by monarchs as it only had 2 items anyways, and perhaps a few other obsolete listings associated with the speeches page. — Kalki 20:39, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I like that. On a very rare visit here I was just looking to upgrade a couple of the links to revised titles at Wikisource. The system does not want to accept the apostrophe in the title "Franklin Roosevelt's first inaugural address". Please address any response to my Wikisource user talk page, since I so seldom come here. Thanks Eclecticology 21:14, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. ~ Kalki 14:24, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Stanley Kubrick

edit

Contains no quote. --Aphaia 22:59, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A quote and information has been added here by someone, and I expect more shall eventually be. ~ Kalki 14:24, 8 Dec 2004 (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.
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. — Jeffq 18:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Colbert

edit

No quotes. ~ UDScott 15:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: UNIDENTIFIED. NO SIGNATURE

T-34 tank

edit

Too stubby (and I can't imagine how it will be expanded or developped). Perhaps better to merge into Technology or another article. --Aphaia 4 July 2005 03:49 (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.
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: redirect. — Kalki


Teresa Simões-Ferreira Heinz

edit

Teresa Simões-Ferreira Heinz is the same person as Teresa Heinz Kerry, and she now goes by the latter name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.180.24.204 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 4 August 2004 (UTC)

Redirect in place as of a minute ago...

Redirect is sufficient here. ~ Kalki
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.
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: Redirected. — Jeffq 15:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Doctor (Doctor Who)

edit

No quotes, encyclopedia article. MosheZadka 08:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: Kept. — Aphaia 8 July 2005 08:24 (UTC)

The Order of the Stick

edit

A web comic (miserably stubby but it has no relevance to the request itself). Having its own article on English Wikiquote, but I doubt in general if those web comics (like web broadcasting dramas) are notable enough have their entries on Wikiquote. We need to establish our policy. --Aphaia 08:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Vote closed: Result: Kept (5 keep, no dissent). --Aphaia 8 July 2005 08:24 (UTC)
  • Keep: Might be biased as a regular reader, but there is a wikipedia article. I suggest, as usual, we adopt the wikipedia policy on web comics until and unless we have manpower to fashion our own. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Category:Comics has two other web comics (Queen of Wands and Something Positive), neither of which are candidates for deletion. Both are unfamiliar to me. Secondly, web comics are a notable cultural phenomenon, and OotS enjoys a very strong (at least) cult status both among web comics fans and Dungeons & Dragons fans. It should also be noted that the wikipedia entry used to have quotes from the comic, but were romeved to prevent making the article messy and not really belonging to Wikipedia - The Merciful 14:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This may be our test case for keeping notable web-only creative works. It has a WP article with significant multiple-editor history, a solid presence in Google, and an author who has at least one published work (Eberron Explorer's Handbook, ISBN 0786936916) and who plans to publish an Order of the Stick book. Speaking as someone who'd never heard of this work before, I believe these points make the original webcomic sufficiently notable to quote from. — Jeff Q (talk) 01:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. 128.107.253.40 29 June 2005 23:14 (UTC) this is an orginal work by a pushlished writer
    • Comment: moved keep vote by anon (but signed!) to standard format. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 4 July 2005 05:43 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Jeffq Dinesh 7 July 2005 19:20 (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.
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: kept. — Jeffq 06:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Other Eden

edit

One misspelled quote, no intro, no wp article. Google search points to half a dozen different ebooks and various references in blogs, but there's no actual book on amazon.com. Suspect self-published vanity. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 03:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: No consensus. — Jeff Q (talk) 06:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Prophet

edit

A notable work by a notable author. So what's the problem? It appears to be the entire book (linked here). I've placed a copyright tag on the page; but should we really wait in hope for someone to come along and trim it? As with the earlier deletion of West Side Story in its entirety, it should be removed unless someone volunteers to make reductions. There are already some quotes from it on the Kahlil Gibran page (and perhaps that page's Attributed quotes, once sourced, would yield some others as well). - InvisibleSun 18:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed. Result: no consensus (1 revert; 1 implicit delete; 1 comment). There doesn't seem to be any general community interest in pursuing this, so it stays as an article, but that doesn't prevent editors from addressing the concerns directly in the article and its talk page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This may or may not be a copyright violation (in the US), depending on whether the original work was published with or without a copyright notice and whether or not its copyright status was renewed. If it was published with notice, and the copyright status was renewed, then the book is still under copyright; otherwise, it is not. Finding out its status, however, may not be easy. If this is out of copyright, it should be transwiki'd to Wikisource; otherwise, deleted as a copyright violation. I'm going to hold off on voting until there's been some time to investigate the status of the work. —LrdChaos 18:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to the 08:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC) version [21] by 219.65.137.236 (talk · contributions). This was a reasonable set of quotes before 202.152.11.194 (talk · contributions) turned it into an apparently complete copy. Regardless of whether or not this is a copyright violation, this strikes me as the best thing to do with our article. If it is not a copyvio, the current text can be transwikied to Wikisource before the reversion (or even after, given the edit history). BTW, I'd have just done the reversion to and posted the potential-copyvio info on its talk page to avoid a 2-week VfD review. But then, I'm an ornery cuss. ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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.
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: Kept.. --Aphaia 04:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Railway Series

edit

No quotes. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 23:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: kept.. — Aphaia 20:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Searchers

edit

No quotes ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: Kept. — Jeffq 05:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To Kit

edit

No notability, no external links, only edited by one (anonymous) user.MosheZadka 13:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed. Result: Kept (3 Keeps; 1 Delete; notability evidence provided and article revised to address some concerns). — Jeff Q (talk) 05:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete MosheZadka 13:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless provided with some evidence of notability. Quotes seem thoughtful enough to be real, but without context, this sounds much more like a vanity page than a published or otherwise documented source. — Jeff Q (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, based on article revisions. Would have been useful if author had provided the Wikipedia link in the article ([2] below); I've rectified that omission. — Jeff Q (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's genuine then... Sams 21:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Actually this page is translated by me, Jerry Crimson Mann, a wikipedia user. Its Chinese version should be at [22]. To Kit is a famous Hong Kong columnist. (For further details, see here: [[23]])(vote from anon, 218.102.234.33).
    • I point out "votes from anon" is problematic in the view of legitimacy. Hence registration is recommended ;-) Aph.
  • Keep And now the Wikipedia link was also provided. --Aphaia 06:44, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. — UDScott 18:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tookie Williams

edit

No quotes. ~ UDScott 18:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: kept/no consensus. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tupac Shakur

edit

I don't really expect a wholesale delete on this article, as it has a lot of useful quotes, but there is considerable material in it that seems like clear copyright violations, and I don't believe we have a formal mechanism yet for citing copyvios outside of VfD. (It also needs some format cleanup, and Tupac fans ought to be able to move some of the Attributed lyrics into Sourced.) I recommend anyone wanting to keep this article remove any complete lyrics or poems, leaving only pithy excerpts, before the vote close date. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: kept due to no consensus (no proper votes; 1 late Keep vote). Mission accomplished anyway, as the article appears not to be a copyvio risk now. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. — Jeff Q (talk) 11:14, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Veronica Mars

edit

Only provides two undescribed (but appropriate) external links and the star's name. I changed a speedy delete tag to a VFD after asking anonymous creator to contribute some quotes. Suggest holding off for a few weeks to see if anyone adds some content.— Jeff Q (talk) 21:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • VOTE CLOSED. Results: 5 valid (signed) Keeps, no dissent; article made incredibly useful in the interim. Tremendous work done by at least 8 different editors! A real success for using VfD to rescue articles. — Jeff Q (talk) 11:14, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Forgot to sign this one, Moshe
  • Keep -- Added one quote, plan to do more soon.
  • Keep -- Added two quotes, and now that I know about this page, I'll be adding more in the future. [sorry I didn't sign in/register before ... didn't know that I needed to, eep!] Whiteowl4 00:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • You don't need to register. If you sign without registering, your IP address is listed. — Jeff Q (talk) 04:34, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Added a couple of quotes and am planning on adding more.
  • Keep now. Note to anonymous - unsigned votes aren't counted. Rmhermen 21:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Several anonymous contributors have done an excellent job adding substantial content to this article. (I've also asked them to come back and sign their votes to allow them to be counted.) — Jeff Q (talk) 23:19, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's taken me a while to work out how to do this but I've added and will continue to add quotes. 195.93.21.99 13:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Should the VfD tag be removed from the VM page? I am not sure how to do it, I would appreciate if some sysop would do that. MosheZadka 02:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Removed. Thank you for your notice and sorry for your annoyance. --Aphaia 03:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • That was my fault. I forgot to remove VfD tags from a couple of articles when I closed the votes. Thanks to Aphaia et al. for picking up after me! ☺ — Jeff Q (talk) 03:14, 18 Apr 2005 (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.
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: No consensus. — Jeffq 07:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vulcan Proverbs

edit

--It's from Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. Spock said "There's an old Vulcan proverb, 'Only Nixon could go to China'," referring to sending Kirk and crew on a diplomatic mission to the Klingons. It was said in dialogue on screen. Vote: NO

  • Keep. It is now vastly expanded upon.Caiman 20:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Comment: Now a new and usual fear struck me: Is it remaining within the sphere of Fair Use? Quotes is not the citation of whole things .... --Aphaia 20:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article is expanded, but from a source called "Surak's Scroll" that has no legitimate citations, no mention in the Wikipedia article on Surak, and zero hits on Google in any of the forms I tried. As it stands, this strikes me as an even greater reason to delete the article. I've posted a note on its talk page to encourage explanation. — Jeff Q (talk) 03:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • OK... seems like you're right, but since 2 other people already tried to contribute to this article, I don't think that we should have eagerness to delete it, and instead we can keep it and wait for some time, perhaps more input from 'trekkers' will emerge... Sams 03:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Sam, do you convince those contribs are legitimate quotes and not fan creations? --Aphaia 03:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I personally know nothing about vulcans and star trek, therefore my opinion here is only in the level of general principles. I think that if we notice articles that seem like a hoax that were created with malicious intent, creating confusion, or containing insults, then we should even speedy-delete them (in the rare cases where we would get it wrong, no big deal, they can be recreated). However, if it seems that the intent was ok, but the contribs didn't get it right, then, assuming that it's possible for the article to be improved (I don't really understand if that's the case here), we should have a more liberal approach, and first try the talk page (like JeffQ did) for a while, before VFD. I note that Jeffq raised a good point, about "legitimacy to spurious information by getting it replicated in search engines". However, JeffQ, with all due respect to TV series, there might be better places to start... For example, I noticed the George Galloway article and cleaned it up a little, but someone dumped in there his 1994 speech with no good source, and if you google sentences from it now, you'll get wikiquote as the result, and perhaps a few message boards with the same thing. It's probably more or less accurate, perhaps completely accurate, but we give it legitimacy on wikiquote without really knowing... BTW in this particular case, the entire page should in fact be divided into 2 wikisource articles, but it seems that the wikipedia people like to use wikiquote for dumping their superfluous data... Sams 10:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I'd actually be in favor of keeping this article if what my inadequate recollection suggests are many proverb-like quotes were reliably listed. But I'd rather delete an article filled with junk now than wait from someone to do due diligence to make this article accurate, which can take months or even years on WQ, while we lend legitimacy to spurious information by getting it replicated in search engines. I think the warning of impending deletion serves to motivate keepers to do the work necessary to make this a useful and accurate article. If not, it can always be recreated later. If no evidence is provided for the legitimacy of the current content and we still keep the article, I'll probably just remove everything not backed up by references (which is currently all but the original single quote). — Jeff Q (talk) 04:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment though the vote closed already, and there is no consensus to delete it (there are the same number of votes for keeps and deletes, 2-2 except Jeffq's latest comment), I would like to extent the vote for some days, like three days or a week. My current position is alike to Jeffq. Now delete, and wait someday a trekker will submit a collection of "legitimate" Valcan proverbs, if exists. So
  • Delete. --Aphaia 07:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think we should count a vote after closure, otherwise what is the point of have a close date? Anyway, since we aim for community consensus, which is not strictly defined but is frequently considered most valid around two-thirds (67%) or more of voting users, another "delete" vote wouldn't change the results. (It would be 60/40 for "delete"; my comment was deliberately not a vote one way or another). Using my judgment per policy, I believe that the community has not achieved the consensus to delete. I do plan, however, to remove the questionable quotes mentioned above until such time as someone can provide a credible source for them, and will endeavor in the near future both to verify the current substantiated quote and to collect some others. Further discussion on this issue should probably take place at Talk:Vulcan proverbs. — Jeff Q (talk) 07:43, 10 Jun 2005 (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.
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 as Redirect. --Aphaia 22:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

War of the Worlds (television)

edit

I moved this page from War of the Worlds and went to post it on Television shows only to find War of the Worlds (TV series). The two pages are exactly identical, so obviously there is only need to keep one. Zhaladshar 12:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • VOTE CLOSED: Keep as Redirect (2 redirected, 1 delete, however already turned to redirect during the vote). --Aphaia 22:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge any quotes not on one or the other and redirect MosheZadka 13:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Both pages have the same set of quotes. Redirected. Zhaladshar 13:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm afraid this confusion was my fault. Bacteria added War of the Worlds to Television shows and five minutes later saved that new page he was working on. Unfortunately, I just happened to have done my periodic review of "Television shows" right in the middle of that, not only moving WotW to "Requested" (as it was not yet created), but disambiguating it (because of the more famous 1953 SF classic of the same name). When Bacteria found the link missing, he/she used the new link to create the same page. It was basically a human race condition, one of the inevitable results of using separately-maintained lists rather than MediaWiki categories. I've fixed one resulting double-redirect, so now all three go correctly to the current War of the Worlds (TV series) page. — Jeff Q (talk) 13:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Can this vote be archived now? It is no longer relevant. MosheZadka 13:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Disambiguity information isn't necessary to redirect. --Aphaia 21:19, 20 Jun 2005 (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.
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. — Jeffq 23:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Category schemes

edit

Created as anonymous-user spam page on 25 Dec 2004, then tagged by RoboAction for deletion. — Jeff Q (talk) 22:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: Keep (1 Keep, 1 implicit Keep, 1 Redirect/Delete; article was also made useful in the interim). — Jeff Q (talk) 23:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect or rename? Category use is still fairly new. Is there not a useful meta-topic in this somewhat vague term? I haven't noticed an overview or central article on Category use (like w:Wikipedia:Category) here at Wikiquote. I offer to copy and edit some stuff from Wikipedia unless there is something here that I've just missed. — Jeff Q (talk) 22:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. I've changed my vote after Rmhermen turned this into a useful article. There's now a substantial discussion about categorization on its Talk page, as well, which I hope other Wikiquotians will participate in. — Jeff Q (talk) 23:31, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I prefer to turn it into a redirect or delete it simply. A document "Category" (or Categories) would be very helpful! But I think we don't need not every categories on Wikipedia - like "1700 death". *g --Aphaia 09:56, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I didn't mean we need to use Wikipedia categories themselves. I'd just like to see a "Wikiquote:" namespace page that explains categories and provides some guidance on how to name them and use them, tailored to Wikiquote needs. I'm sure Categories have been discussed elsewhere in Wikiquote, but there should be a central, logical place to find such discussions. — Jeff Q (talk) 20:47, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I have some questions about category. Where do we discuss this? Rmhermen 23:12, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Perhaps on Village pump for now. I'm writing up a summary of the Wikiquote category situation as I see it, which I hope to post there in the next few hours. But don't let me hold you up. — Jeff Q (talk) 01:19, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • I started a new discussion on the village pump about filling in some gaps in Wikiquote's current use of Wikimedia Categories. Its outcome affects this article, so folks might want to check it out. — Jeff Q (talk) 04:26, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I have tried to turn this into something we can use, anticipating the conclusion of the discussion on the Village Pump. Rmhermen 14:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: I change my opinion. After editing by Rmhermen it turns to a quite useful document. --Aphaia 09:24, 11 Apr 2005 (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.
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: UNIDENTIFIED. NO SIGNATURE


Wikiquote:Pay attention to spelling

edit

Such comments belong on talk pages, the village pump or introductory pages, really don't deserve a page of their own. ~ Moby 03:40, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There was a link on the Wikiquote:Policies and guidelines page (largely based upon a Wikipedia page) for such a page. If no one objects, sometime in the next week or so, I will direct that link to the Wikipedia page on the matter, and delete this one. ~ Kalki 05:08, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC) // I never did this, and might let things rest as they are. ~ Kalki
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.
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. — Jeff Q (talk) 11:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Reference desk

edit

Tagged for speedy delete by RoboAction. I changed it back to VFD because it could have a legitimate purpose on Wikiquote, as it does on Wikipedia — namely, a place for Wikiquotians to ask non-Wikiquote questions, as a library customer might ask a librarian a general-knowledge question. Should we: delete it because we don't have the community desire for this off-topic forum; redirect it to Wikiquote:Village pump, where we handle most questions in this still-small community; or keep it, as it is harmless if no one responds, and could be useful if other Wikiquotians take an interest in playing reference librarian on occasion? — Jeff Q (talk) 05:02, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: 3 Keeps, no dissent; page also made useful in the interim. — Jeff Q (talk) 11:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Now that I know it's there, I'll play librarian if I can. — Jeff Q (talk) 05:02, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It wouldn't be harmful if no one responds to irrelevant questions. And it is friendly we have a page as such. And I appliciate Jeff Q greatly for his offer. --Aphaia 05:11, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Rmhermen 00:11, 31 Mar 2005 (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.
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. — Jeffq 04:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Will Cuppy

edit

This was tagged for speedy deletion, but I changed it to VfD to give it a couple of weeks for improvement. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • VOTE CLOSED. Results: Keep (2 Keeps, no dissent; article substantially improved). — Jeff Q (talk) 04:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I commit to adding a decent number of quotes from The Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody, and possibly some other works, during the next two weeks. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I have now added about 40 quotes from Decline and Fall, and plan many more. — Jeff Q (talk) 15:34, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now. Rmhermen 13:19, 5 Apr 2005 (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.
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: merge and redirect. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 02:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wives

edit

Tagged as VfD by Aphaia but not listed here. ~ MosheZadka 08:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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. — Jeffq 03:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder Showzen

edit

No quotes. —LrdChaos 23:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: inconclusive; no action taken.. — Jeffq 02:20, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yoda & Jar Jar Binks

edit

I love Yoda, he is one of my favorite characters in the Star Wars sagas, but people looking for quotes by Yoda should be able to find them in the Star Wars movies page and not have to hunt further, and there shouldn't be duplication just to give him a page. I am someone who doesn't believe we should make pages just for quotes of fictional characters: they should be quoted in the works that they are a part of. - Moby 22:27, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: inconclusive; no action taken. (See Talk:VFD for details.) — Jeff Q (talk) 02:20, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • A page also exists for Jar Jar Binks, I am proposing that the quotes from these be incorporated into sections beneath the movies on the Star Wars page, and then these can be deleted. I will allow at least a month for comments before I do anything about this. ~ Kalki 05:24, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Guanaco 02:18, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Why not just link to Yoda from the Star Wars page? Many ppl might look for yoda on his own (especially because of his strange diction). I don't know if the same should be done for Jar Jar Binks. Or u could put 2 sample quotes and give a link to the full page of quotes. 65.7.166.232 22:18, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) (BrokenSegue from wikipedia)
  • As a non-fan of the Star Wars franchise, though appreciative of its effect on popular culture via my siblings who were of age to enjoy the movies when they were initially released in theaters, I suggest we let the Yoda quotes stay in the Wiki. They're certainly not doing any harm, and unless there's a copyright issue, Yoda's words are easily as important, recognizable, and relevant as any modern-day real-world philosopher's, in the context of a quote-based Wiki. I see no reason why this page should have the dreaded "suggested for deletion" mark on it... quite contrary to the modern evolution of knowledge.

Apologies for any shortsightedness on my part... -JIV

  • I too think that we should let the yoda quotes page stay. I myself reached this page upon searching for 'yoda quotes' in google. - roshan
I am considering simply making the Yoda page a redirect to a section on the Star Wars page, for quotes made by Yoda. Similar sections could be made for other major characters, but personally I think Jar Jar Binks lists low as a quotable character, and probably should not be given his own section, let alone a page. A little duplication of quotes, even on a page, would not be too bad, but if a character is given his own section I think that most of his quotes from any of the movies should generally go there. I wouldn't mind only Yoda being given such a section, or otherwise this page might eventually evolve into a page with sections for major characters, and quotes in the sections on the movies might be relegated to those from relatively minor characters. I do think it is more convenient for people seeking Star Wars quotations to find them all on one page, and not have them scattered over many small ones. ~ Kalki 16:39, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I say keep. Sure he's a fictional character but many his sayings have passed into popular culture which makes hime very quotable. ~Alex
  • I vote we move both to the Star Wars article, and have the current articles redesignated as redirects to Star Wars. The alternative is to break down the Star Wars pages by character and redesignate the Yoda and Jar Jar Binks pages as redirects to that specific character on Star Wars. Either will work with me, as lng as they're somewhere. --Zarggg 01:52, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I say keep. Yoda has the best quotes.
  • Yoda is a pop icon whose appearance alone can drive up an publication/productions revenue. His quotes have spawned the interest and analysis of millions, keep him!
  • I came to this page by searching Google for "Yoda Quotes", since I was specifically looking for words of wisdom from the Jedi master, and not generic Star Wars quotes. I suggest that the Yoda page remain separate.
  • Keep on both. When does this vote close? I'm new here :). Gaurav 15:38, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Star Wars, but reorganize Star Wars to group by character, with a separate section on dialog, under each film. That way, it's not too difficult to find all the quotes of any significant character, the source is easily recognized, and multiple-character dialog has an unambiguous place to go. (I can even add a custom TOC to make it easier to jump to character/dialog/show if there's interest.) — Jeff Q (talk) 17:15, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect until Star Wars becomes too large. I notice that Yoda is already redirected. Rmhermen 16:08, 1 Apr 2005 (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.

Deleted articles 0-D

edit

The votes on these main namespace articles resulted in their deletion.

20th Century Fox & Paramount: The Curse of the Imagine Entertainment

edit

See #Paramount Go Christmas!.

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: Delete. — Jeffq 03:55, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

24

edit
  • Roboaction put a vfd tag on this in December but may not have listed it here. It was blanked by its creator and never had any quotes. Rmhermen 01:56, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • VOTE CLOSED. Results: Delete (2 Deletes, 1 implicit Delete, no dissent, no change to article). — Jeff Q (talk) 03:55, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone adds quotes in next week or two. I love this show, but have a problem with content-free pages. (I'd add quotes myself, but I usually only contribute when I can verify quotes, and I have none from this excellent show.) If it's deleted, I'll put it back on the "requested" list of Television shows, so it won't be forgotten. — Jeff Q (talk) 07:16, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone adds quotes before the vote is closed. --Aphaia 09:28, 11 Apr 2005 (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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 05:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 Strings

edit

I've nominated this and the following pages for deletion. They are more creations of User:169.244.143.115 that are just nonsense pages and have no valid quotes. The other pages included in this nomination are: Lions, BT, Pranks, NFL Quotations, and Alice Deejay. Note: I also blocked this user for a week for his continued insistence on creating such nonsense pages. ~ UDScott 17:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 00:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A blind man running for his life will never see the difference. Scot proverb (Granny Kerr)

edit

Not really a proverb (proverbs should be folk wisdom, not attributed to a specific grandmother), and not really a proverb article. One of the problems, probably, with the Help:Starting a new page system :( ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: Deleted. — Jeffq 07:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A speech made by The Prince of Wales at a Business Lunch in Mumbai held with members of the business community, A speech for the opening of the Pembrokeshire Meat Company Abattoir

edit

And also A Time to Heal by HRH The Prince of Wales, A speech to open the second Prince of Wales Education Summer School

All of them were transwikied. Former I thought it were better for us to keep it, but now I change my mind. We have already Transwiki log. If necessary, we can keep record on the transwiki log, and of course on Wikisource. --Aphaia 8 July 2005 03:04 (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.
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: delete. — LrdChaos 14:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aamir gill

edit

Not notable. No Wikipedia page, and Google turns up only 17 results on the name, none of which show any sort of notability. —LrdChaos 21:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: Deleted. — Jeffq 08:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aaron Franks

edit

Several quote websites have this (and only this) unsourced quote for this person, but no other info. Unable to find any noteworthy person by this name. (An obscure sportswriter; a lawyer from a firm with a web page; an alias of a B5 character in one episode, in which he doesn't say this; an obscure Edmonton stage actor, etc. — but nobody famous.) Anyone hear of him? — Jeff Q (talk) 08:07, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • VOTE CLOSED: Result: Deleted (2 Delete [1 after close]; no dissent). Sorry 'bout the delay in effecting closure. — Jeff Q (talk) 08:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No sign of notability. — Jeff Q (talk) 01:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. --Aphaia 07:49, 14 Apr 2005 (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.
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: UNIDENTIFIED. NO SIGNATURE


Academy Award

edit

Non-quote expository article. Text lifted directly from two pages [24] [25] of Motion Picture Academy website, in clear violation of their copyright. — Jeff Q (talk) 09:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • VOTE CLOSED: deleted. (2 deletes, no dissent).
  • Delete. Jeff Q (talk) 09:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. We should probably develop a copyright violation procedure as well. Rmhermen 15:42, 24 Apr 2005 (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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 10:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ACPOC Syndrome

edit

No quotes. ~ UDScott 12:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes; no dissent; no quotes adding; title never verified as legitimate either on WQ or WP, where it was also deleted). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, since there are no quotes, and I can't imagine that there would be quotes that specifically dealt with this topic. This would probably be better served as a WP entry. ~ UDScott 12:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article was created by an anonymous editor 6 minutes before the same article was created on Wikipedia by a registered user. I strongly suspect it was the same editor who tried to post this unsourced apparent neologism to both projects, except Wikipedia no longer allows article creation from anons. w:ACPOC Syndrome was tagged for proposed deletion (1 step before actual nomination) to encourage improvement, so its progress during our VfD should be illuminating. However, I concur with UDScott that our copy should go unless the encyclopedia article here is replaced by quotes, and I further expect that they be sourced to prevent someone just making some up or quoting an unpublished lawyer. (Adding sources to the WP article could provide a means to get solid quotes, if they exist.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No quotes. jni 17:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Per w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ACPOC Syndrome, the WP article has been deleted. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: kept. ~ Kalki 12:00, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Adam Margolin

edit

See w:Adam Margolin (which may very well be deleted by now); this person is completely unnotable and has said nothing interesting. --Pyrop 18:58, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with your assessment. He has some very funny taglines and has made some very interesting observations on life. I agree that he shouldn't quit his day job (he helps me too much), but I think he's going places. As for his unnotablity, he is reknowned in his field, as he is considered by many to be the best computer programmer in the specialized aspect of his field. I believe that quotes provide an interesting slice of life of a graduate student at Columbia. Andreas C 20:26, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I intend to conform my actions to whatever decision is made at the Wikipedia on the article there, but I confess I fully expect the article to be deleted as a vanity page, sometime within the next few days. ~ Kalki 20:40, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That sounds fair, but I have to disagree with you about the chances of Mr. Margolin's article. His article is far longer than any of the articles that are tagged for speedy deletion, and his is clearly the only one that makes a point or even makes sense. Either way, we will let fate play out.Andreas C 20:47, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Do you really think the article is that bad? If so, is it salvagable? Or he is too "unnotable" and completely unworthy of a page? Slambodog 02:39, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I do not know who you were addressing, but though I can disagree with the statement made by Pyrop, that would imply Margolin or anyone is "completely unnotable and has said nothing interesting", I yet understand the reaction that produces such comments; there are definitely practical limits to the levels of notability of people that can be given an encyclopedia article at the Wikipedia, or an article here. No decision has yet been made at the Wikipedia, and both articles have some interesting statements, but I still believe the article at the Wikipedia is unlikely to survive more than a few days. ~ Kalki 03:35, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Just one hour ago, the user Frazzydee has deemed this not to be a "speedy." Assuming Mr. Damji has authority to do this, I proud to report that Mr. Margolin has survived the speedy deletion process. Slambodog 06:12, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Your statement was a little dense, so I had some trouble understanding it, especially considering how late it was getting. Now that I understand, let me clarify. What I meant was that, if you (Kalki) were so sure that the article would be deleted, was it because the article itself was bad or was it because the Adam Margolin is simply not worthy of a page? If it were the former, I could try to get in touch with Mr. Margolin, and add some substance. However, if it were the latter, then que sera, sera. Slambodog 20:11, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am for deletion. Even if we accept quotations by unnotable persons but with interesting contents, this article has no intelectually interesting significance. Just a silly talk. --Aphaia 23:08, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Despite my own impressions that the person is probably not as yet notable enough to merit a page at Wikipedia, the page there remains, probably because of his published papers, and thus I will retain one here, so long as that is the case. ~ Kalki 12:00, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The status of this article at Wikipedia has changed... it is now to be deleted, pending the technical problems that are currently preventing some deletions. I think that the time has come to delete this as well, if possible. ~ Kalki 19:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure how other projects handle archives of superceded VfDs, but in this solitary odd case (so far), I think I could attach this dialog to the new vote as a subsection so that (A) it's not lost and (B) the article's complete VfD history is available in one place. If no one objects to the proposed archive reformatting, I hope to do this when I convert the archive. — Jeff Q (talk) 20:22, 13 Apr 2005 (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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 20:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Pearson

edit

Vanity page for a non-notable student. —LrdChaos 05:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 17:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Address Unknown "episodes"

edit

The following articles have been transwikied from Wikipedia:

These appear to be complete transcriptions of "episodes" from Address Unknown, a fictional TV show featured within the video game Max Payne. They seem to be improper on several levels. First, Wikiquote is not an appropriate venue for transcriptions. If they are not copyrighted, they belong on Wikisource. If they are copyrighted (which seems most likely), they don't belong in any MediaWiki project. Second, it seems highly questionable that a fictional TV show shown only in pieces within a video game is notable enough for its own article. Even the Wikipedia article on the overall "television series" seems quite fancruftian, and probably ought to be only a section of the Max Payne article. Third, even if Address Unknown is considered notable, it hardly seems to require one article per episode, since we do not allow complete transcriptions. A single article would suffice for quotes, assuming there is anything worth quoting. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 07:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adenosine triphosphate

edit

No quotes. ~ UDScott 12:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent; no response from creator). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 12:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It seems unlikely that we'll establish a collection of quotes on this admittedly important biological substance, but I'm prepared to be proven wrong. The way this brief description is written, and the name inexplicably attached to the end, makes me suspect that this may be a "quote" from a California middle-school student. If so, it fails a notability test. I've posted a note to the anon editor requesting more information. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Edmondson

edit

No quotes. ~ UDScott 18:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 12:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Speyer

edit

Assumingly vanity: on English Wikipdia there is no article, but 13 deleted revisions since last June 3. --Aphaia 6 July 2005 06:29 (UTC)

  • Vote closed: Result delete and ask about quote on reference desk (3 deletes, no dissent) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MosheZadka (talk • contribs) 12:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Aphaia 6 July 2005 06:29 (UTC)
  • Delete and move "you can call a horse a duck" quote to Anonymous ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 6 July 2005 07:30 (UTC)
    • Comment: Is this quote notable itself? (Just curious. I know such sense varies by person). --Aphaia 6 July 2005 08:12 (UTC)
      • Well, it does seem to be a popular idiom, if not precisely in that format (usually, just saying something like "you can call a horse a duck, but still college students are not academics" or something similar -- that is, not quoting the second part). ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 6 July 2005 08:20 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided. And technically this quote shouldn't go into Anonymous, as it isn't. If this person isn't notable, and the sense of his quote isn't original (which is certain; I've heard variations on this for decades), then just delete it and wait for someone to add an older anonymous version. Every one of these "but we can fix it with a little research" situations adds to the burden of those who actively participate on broad Wikiquote issues, and we're already getting behind and sloppy on important problems that must be handled by a tiny fraction of Wikiquotians. Let the community do what a community can do best. — Jeff Q (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: delete. — LrdChaos 13:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aiven Andrians

edit

A search for this name yields unnotable postings (Amazon.com, etc) and a stub page on Wikipedia for the Humanistic American Religious Party. A search for this organization yields a lot of mirror references based on the stub, but nowhere is this party actually described or discussed. Since Andrians' notability would be due to this party, its lack of note in itself would argue against his getting an article on Wikiquote. A search for "Philosophical Taughts" [sic], the source of various quotes, yields nothing but the Wikiquote page itself. - InvisibleSun 12:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closed. Result: delete (five explicit votes to delete, one implicit vote to delete, no dissent). —LrdChaos 13:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 16:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alamela Rowan

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 14:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: deleted. — MosheZadka 05:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Suja

edit

One unsourced quote in "sourced", no wp article, google points to various places, which don't seem promising. The only thing I managed to find is a reference to Alan & Suja, supposed to be a short comedy by a small production company. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 14:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Alayna Rakes

edit

See #Uncle Nagy's House, Alayna Rakes.

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: delete. — Jeffq 16:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Murillo

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 19:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: deleted. --Aphaia 29 June 2005 23:30 (UTC)

Aleksandr Maksimov

edit

No notability, google search shows nothing obvious, no wikipedia article, single quote not found anywhere, not sourced, no blurb. MosheZadka 14:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: Deleted (2 deletes, no dissent) --Aphaia 29 June 2005 23:30 (UTC)
  • Delete MosheZadka 14:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even the three most "notable" Google citations of this name — a Ukranian music studio founder, a Russian admiral mentioned in passing in a policy studies paper, a Belarussian judge in a Red Cross contest — have thus far failed to merit a WP article or to seem particularly notable, and the single quote given sounds much more like a kid expressing teenage rebellion. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:01, 25 Jun 2005 (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.
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: Deleted. — Jeffq 1 July 2005 00:17 (UTC)

Alex Michalas

edit
  • Non-notable. Kalki questioned the user the day it was posted with no response except seven months later a different anon erased his note. Delete. Rmhermen 17:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: Deleted (3 Deletes; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 1 July 2005 00:17 (UTC)
    • Delete: No sign of notability. --Aphaia 00:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Jeff Q (talk) 00:08, 25 Jun 2005 (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.

Alice Deejay

edit

See 4 Strings.

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: deleted. Aphaia 23:30, 29 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Hoeltke

edit

All the revisions seem to be without notability. The person herself is unclear (at least on googling) but we have her quotes on other article(s) including Change. Wikipedia has had no article since last June. I doubt even her "quotes" should be changed their attributions into "anonymous". Any information will be welcome. --Aphaia 16:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: Deleted (2 deletes, no dissent). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aphaia (talk • contribs) 23:30, 29 June 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. And change change. Rmhermen 16:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. This article seems to be a game sandbox for one or two anon editors. The only external instances of Hoeltke quotes are on notoriously unreliable quote sites, and there are only 2 or 3 at that. Extremely unnotable; remove Change quote before deleting. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:06, 25 Jun 2005 (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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 01:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alicja Gajowniczek

edit

Another non-notable teacher, where all the quotes appear to just be student recollections. —LrdChaos 18:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 21:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All Grown Up

edit

Almost certain copyright violation. Former content [26] was apparently the entire lyrics to the theme song of All Grown Up!, an animated kids' show. Since it's a real show, it might be salvaged with some quotes, including excerpts from the song (which doesn't have much to begin with). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 19:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allgames.com

edit

Quotations from the forums of a site of non-notable people. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 08:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: Delete. — UDScott 22:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amirali Zohrenejad

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 22:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 12:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ana ivanovic

edit

No quotes, just some POV bio information. —LrdChaos 18:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: speedy deleted test page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Crichton

edit

The vfd tag has been alternately added to and removed from this page by 212.219.66.215 (talk · contributions) (the same IP that created the article) with no rationale stated. I'm bringing it over here to complete the process. —LrdChaos 14:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed early after speedy deletion, under "test page" case. Rationale: sole IP editor (from Warwick University, UK) created a 1-quote article with no provenance, spammed his own article, tagged it for VfD, then unspammed it. Clearly this person is either test-editing or playing games. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The page doesn't establish notability; the top result on a Google search is the IMDB page for an actor who had only one film in the 1970s. Second result is an empty page with the name for a title, and third is the Wikiquote page. Given the edit history, it feels like the account responsible for most of the edits (212.219.66.215) is being used by multiple users who know each other (as the only edits relate to this page). For whatever reason, this page suddenly started seeing activity from the account again after two months; however, even the 'original' content doesn't really belong. —LrdChaos 14:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 15:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 14:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Finlay

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 13:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless evidence of notability is provided. A google search only yields an assortment of professors and a barrister, none of which seems to meet the notability standard. ~ UDScott 13:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Actually, I think it's worse than a question of notability. The anonymous user comes from within the Northern Grid for Learning network, which apparently serves British schools, making me suspect that this is an attempt to disparage the Cardiff University professor with false quotes. I have replaced nearly the entire content of the article with a notice about this suspicion and a link to the page history for review. (This will keep the material from being mirrored and search-indexed while we review this case.) Editors who wish to make a legitimate article from this sub-stub should add brief bio info and quotes, preferably sourced, after the warning. Currently, there is no WP article to aid this process. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 00:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew lafree

edit

Notability not demonstrated. - InvisibleSun 20:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closed. Result: delete (6 deletes, incl. 1 implicit; no dissent.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 14:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Nierman

edit

No quotes, and not notable. ~ UDScott 23:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes; 1 Keep; (unsourced) quotes added, but notability deemed insufficient per WP/WQ guidelines). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless quotes are added and notability is shown. This appears to just be a professor (and precedent holds that such people are not notable enough to post their quotes unless they have published significant works or are generally considered well-known). ~ UDScott 23:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete, quotes have been added and this person is of note, having been named the smartest person in the world by the International High IQ Society. He has additionally published sidgnificant works in the area of XML databases and probabalistic information. ~ Ealtorfer 02:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, concurring with UDScott. This article appears to have been created by an understandably admiring University of Puget Sound student of a professor whom an International High IQ Society contest called "the world's smartest person". The article cites a UPS course page instead of the more informative University of Michigan student webpage of former grad student Nierman. The latter includes citations of an Ann Arbor News article in which he is quoted as saying, "Pretty funny […] I think there's a little bit of difference between being the world's smartest person and winning this contest." Indeed, the International High IQ Society's website doesn't seem to consider this title important enough even to mention it in any obvious place on its website]; in fact, my quick perusal didn't even turn up the contest itself. (And how smart can this organization be if they don't even provide a search function for their website? ☺) Seriously, this newly-minted professor would need a good amount of published work to meet the usual wiki notability requirements. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails the professor test. No page on Wikipedia despite WQ article linking there (this is not to be construed as an encouragement to add a vanity page to Wikipedia!). jni 18:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 23:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Price, Andrew Alexander Price

edit

Vanity page. Lots of Google hits for other people named "Andrew Price" (a pro golfer, an actor, etc.) but not a 16 year old student. —LrdChaos 02:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes; no specific dissent). I was surprised and disappointed that the anonymous editor didn't register to allow a user-page move, as they have continued to contribute to Wikiquote since creating these articles. But that's their choice, of course. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. —LrdChaos 02:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since "Andrew Price" is such a generic name, I've moved it to Andrew Alexander Price. Andrew Price, 07:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. I've added the other page as well, since the first has now been blanked, an the second still seems to be a deletion candidate. ~ UDScott 11:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've reverted the blanking as against policy. Since the anon creator has identified himself as "Andrew Price" in the above posting, this is a confirmed vanity page. Since I've already gone through this much trouble, I've also added a register-and-move-to-userpage note to the anon's talk page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: delete. — LrdChaos 16:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew T. Butcher

edit

Not notable. - InvisibleSun 23:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: Deleted. — Jeffq 05:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Andrey Marchuk

edit

Probably misplaced user page. Rmhermen 14:36, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: Deleted (2 Deletes; 1 arguably implied Delete; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 05:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No quotes. Does not exist in Wikipedia. jni 14:42, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Supposingly the editor intended to create his user page, but this editor was an anonym. (Or we could move it to his places ...) --Aphaia 17:13, 16 Apr 2005 (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.
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: Deleted. ~ Kalki 19:09, 11 March 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Lai

edit
  • non-notable quote from non-notable personage. Rmhermen 17:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Deleted ~ Kalki
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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 03:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anfiniti

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 13:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: deleted.. — Aphaia 9 July 2005 03:50 (UTC)

Anime

edit

One quote from a user where the link is to a wikipedia user page (not a main page). Likely vanity. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 01:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: Result: deleted. (2 deletes, no dissent) --Aphaia 9 July 2005 03:50 (UTC)
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 01:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless at least one notable quote about anime is posted before the close date. This article title has potential, but without the quote from a Wikiquote user (which is inappropriate by policy), it would be blank. — Jeff Q (talk) 28 June 2005 05:08 (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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 13:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another Day

edit

Full lyrics of song -- copyvio (song from Rent). ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — LrdChaos 20:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Antarctic institute of canada

edit

No quotes. - InvisibleSun 01:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 20:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Donovan Eichelberger

edit

Not notable. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 12:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: deleted.. — Aphaia 00:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Wolkov

edit

One (likely) misspelt quote by anon. No Wikipedia page, no Internet presense except WQ mirrors. Delete. jni June 27, 2005 12:50 (UTC)

  • Vote Closed: Result: deleted. (3 deletes, no dissent).--Aphaia 00:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These apparent vanity pages are popping up so often that I'm beginning to think that we should use VfD to get the anons who create them to justify the article or have them deleted, rather than force the community to research them. How hard can it be to add a friggin' line about who a person is, and a link to why they're worth quoting? — Jeff Q (talk) 28 June 2005 04:33 (UTC)
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 03:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apu Nahasapeemapetilon

edit

A page for a Simpsons character that doesn't include any quotes that can be merged into The Simpsons. —LrdChaos 20:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Aphaia 22:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Areti metuamate

edit

Appears to be a New Zealand college student. Rmhermen 14:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • VOTE CLOSED: Result: delete (2 delete, no dissent).--Aphaia 22:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete No sign of notability.--Aphaia 17:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:57, 17 Apr 2005 (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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 16:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argos

edit

No quotes. ~ UDScott 20:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: Deleted. — Jeffq 04:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aries

edit
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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 6 July 2005 07:47 (UTC)

Arthur Clayton Crafsee

edit

With googling "Arthur Clayton Crafsee" "Arthur Crafsee" and the first line ("The cockroaches stood on a hill") of this article, onle one result on slashdot is return. No Wikipedia article, too. At least on the Internet there is no sign of notability. --Aphaia 5 July 2005 16:08 (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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 06:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ashoka Prasad

edit

No obvious notability, seemingly identical comment was speedied from wikipedia. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed: Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does this person really want the visibility of Wikiquote? Google offers a book editor (not author) in the medical field, an arrrest-warrant press release for illegal medical practice in Canada, and a "Special Expert, Ministry of Health, Mahe, Seychelles" (conveniently far from Canada). Maybe it's not the same person, but if not, the anon editor should seriously consider adding (other) verifiable notability info. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete UDScott 12:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think the quote warrants to be noted therefore delete would be my vote.I have also checked the book quoted.The author is Ashoka Jahnavi-Prasad and not Ashoka Prasad.I would have missed it as I initially looked intoi the P section and on googling I did not find any of these except the book part.But this quote is supremely unnoteworthy.JK,26th November 2005
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.
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: deleted. ~ Kalki 21:51, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Ashutosh Arya

edit

Ashutosh_Arya - The quotes are neither insightful nor funny, and no person by this name seems to be really noteworthy... - Marcika 149.159.131.193 22:29, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

This has been deleted. ~ Kalki 21:51, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: Deleted. — Jeffq 07:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Askari Jafri

edit

No quotes, no intro, no wp article, google points to various minor mentions (not sure if it's the same person). ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 07:32 (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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 08:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Austin James Schock

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 15:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: deleted.. — Aphaia 20:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Roberts

edit

No apparent notability, same-named wp article is about someone else (with no disambig nod to this person). ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: Delete. — Jeff Q (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian rules football

edit

This page contains two quotes, neither of which are about Australian rules football; they both seem to have been said by people connected with it, but the quotes seem to relate only to specific incidents within the sport, not the sport in general. —LrdChaos 13:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 19:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B. H. Danser's Monograph: Nepenthes rajah

edit

This appears to merely be a bibliographic entry or an appendix to another article. In any case, there aren't really any quotes. ~ UDScott 11:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: Deleted and protected with a message. — jni 09:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bad title

edit

Unexplained redirect to Antoine de Saint-Exupery, which itself is a redirect to Antoine de Saint-Exupéry. I considered speedy-deleting it, but I'm not certain that St-Ex didn't have a work with this title (in French, of course). — Jeff Q (talk) 09:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: Deleted and protected with a message. jni 09:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I think this can be deleted, but except it to be re-created in some form because MediaWiki software has a curious feature to go to that page when it encounters a malformed link. For example, try to type [[ as a page name in your browsers address bar, and you will be directed to Bad title. I don't know if it is possible to change this behaviour. jni 14:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I updated the page to show the text of MediaWiki:Badtitletext and protected it. I suggest we delete the history and the VfD tag from it, but leave the one version I put there to prevent constant re-creation. And maybe a warning/explanatory message on its talk. This is how WP handles this special case currently. jni 14:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and re-create in the way Jni proposed. --Aphaia 18:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as Jni said, and the re-created page would also be protected, if I understood correctly? Sams 20:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as jni said. Jeff Q (talk) 04:40, 2 Jun 2005 (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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 03:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bart the Genius

edit

A page created for a single episode of The Simpsons, with no quotes to merge. —LrdChaos 15:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 00:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basheer Ahmed, Bashir Ahmed

edit

These two articles, also from David Kretch creator 24.107.82.65, do not appear to be about the more notable people with these names who can be found through Google. Since 24's entire contributions consist of the Kretch, Cannon, Rupert, and Ahmed articles, this suggest this person isn't sufficiently notable, either. As always, though, we can hope for some evidence. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 7 July 2005 16:39 (UTC)

Basil O'Connor

edit

One quote with no source, no wp article, no intro, google hits show various quote collections. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 16:39 (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.
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: delete both. — Jeffq 12:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be and Do

edit

Identical pages that contain nothing worth keeping; neither of these pages can really be expanded to include anything more than the same 'joke' present on both of them. —LrdChaos 13:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 19:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beaujolais Bulman

edit

Non-notable person (no Google hits, no WP page) and no quotes on the page (though the page's creator added one quote, attributed to this person, to God). —LrdChaos 14:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 03:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty that is easiest to find isn't always the substance of a being

edit

1) An article created for a quote and not the person who said it; 2) the person who said it is the person who posted it; 3) notability not demonstrated. - InvisibleSun 16:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 04:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Payton

edit

This page is a nearly-identical copy of User:Ben Payton in the article space (so probably vanity) and includes no assertion of notability. —LrdChaos 22:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (4 proper Deletes, 1 discounted late Delete; 3 counted Keeps [Forrest Hump, Great Warrior, Changetheworld] since 88.107.104.96 not only attempted 2 deceptions but also is a suspected sockpuppet of Forrest Hump/Ben Payton; most importantly, no attempt was made to change the article either to source the notability of the putative quotee (a British "orator") or to replace the material with quotes from the identified notable Benjamin Payton). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. —LrdChaos 22:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete Actually this article is not remotely similar to the User: Ben Payton page and it does include an assertion of notability. Oh, and by the way, why not read the page before you vote to delete it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.107.104.96 (talk • contribs) 14 May 2006 10:39:38 (UTC)
    • Comment. At the time of the nomination, this was the "Ben Payton" page and this was the "User:Ben Payton" page. At the time, they were nearly identical. Many of the changes since then have been from an anon user, not User:Ben Payton (which, had I noticed, would have been reverted, as edits to User pages (not User talk pages) should only be from that user). As to notability, while the article does now include an assertion of notability, I'm unable to find evidence to support it. The top results for a Google search on the name are a Wikipedia user page, a comic book character, a musician, etc. For all that, there are only 164 results, and only two (both pages on the same site, www.school-portal.co.uk) appear to be this person. —LrdChaos 16:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete for those fairly obvious reasons Forrest Hump
  • Don't delete there's some memorable quotes here by a noted public speaker UDScott —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.107.104.96 (talk • contribs) 14 May 2006 10:55:27 (UTC)
  • Keep Ben Payton is an extremely well known figure up here in Alaska and if you've read the article about him you'll see that he's an highly impressive orator. Incidentally a google search reveals some 1,4100,000 results Great Warrior of the North
    • The first sentence above is not evidence, but a mere claim. For all we know, the author might not be "up here in Alaska", but halfway around the world instead. That's why personal attestations are not considered evidence. It also includes the standard attempt to ignore notability and verifiability requirements by selling the qualities of the quotes and quotee. As for the supposed Google search, here is mine for "Ben Payton" [27], which yields 377 hits, remarkably low for a presumably common name, even if no Ben Payton is notable. I invite GWotN to provide us with a link to his Google search as evidence. Otherwise, given his current edit history (1 edit each to "Ben Payton", his own user page, and this page), I would have to suspect him of being a sockpuppet of User:Ben Payton himself. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. It is possible that User:Ben Payton, User:Forrest Hump, and the IP 88.107.104.96 are all the same user, given the contribution history of the users, and the fact that 88.107.104.96 has made edits to the user pages for both users. —LrdChaos 17:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The current article claims that Ben Payton is "President of Tuskegee University in Alaska". Since Tuskegee University (at least the only one I know of) is in Alabama, this reinforces, along with the impersonation, apparent sockpuppetry, and the complete lack of actual evidence (not just unsupported claims), the idea that these users are all the the person, who is a prankster. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, concur with Jeffq and LrdChaos. ~ UDScott 13:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There seems to be quite a bit of confusion promulgated over this article. User:Ben Payton, who created this article, states that this person is a "well known British orator". User:Great Warrior of the North added a claim that the quotee was "President of Tuskegee University in Alaska and shared a podium with President George W. Bush when he visited the university in April 2006", and added the above comment that the quotee "is an extremely well known figure up here in Alaska". An anonymous user in the same network as our impersonator here, 88.107.104.96, quickly reverted GWotN's edit. My own research turned up a "President Benjamin F. Payton" of Tuskegee University in Alabama, who did indeed give a speech before Bush. (See Payton bio, White House press release, Tuskegee version, Payton quotes.) This person has no Wikipedia article at this time, under "Benjamin Payton" (the canonical representation) or any reasonable variation. I draw the following conclusions from this and the above information:
    1. User:Ben Payton, who uses British spelling on his user page, created a vanity article about himself.
    2. 88.107.101.162 (talk · contributions), 88.107.104.96 (talk · contributions), 88.107.108.70 (talk · contributions) (all of whom operate from within UK ISP Tiscali's DSL network of likely dynamic IP addresses), and User:Forrest Hump are likely sockpuppets of User:Ben Payton. Even if they aren't, their combined contributions to Wikiquote to-date have been solely to support the British Ben Payton (with only minor exceptions for user pages and a single VfD vote supporting Hannah Richardson while admitting this person is not notable).
    3. User:Great Warrior of the North, who supports the article, seems to think it's about the Tuskegee president, and despite apparently being from Alaska, claims familiarity with this Payton while thinking he works in Alaska rather than Alabama (a rather significant error).
    4. Dr. Benjamin F. Payton seems to be notable enough for quoting, but no one participating in this VfD seems to really know this person or wish to correctly quote him.
    My conclusion is that nobody here is willing to make this article even a stub about a notable person. I would recommend that if Tuskegee fans wish to have an article on their President, they should start one from scratch at Benjamin Payton (and don't forget the sources that I took the trouble to dig up). This article is a hopeless mess. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. InvisibleSun 05:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep i've read through all the articles nominated for deletion, and this is one of the very few that is any good. How can it be a 'hopeless mess' when its actually got outstanding pieces of rhetoric? Wikiquote is supposed to be about good quotations, so lets keep the few that we have. Changetheworld 19:12 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid I wasn't very clear when I said the article was a hopeless mess. I really meant that trying to figure out what this article should be is a hopeless mess, per my above research on the subject(s) and the editors' postings and edit histories. Pithiness of quotes is irrelevant to Wikiquote if the quotee is not notable. Wikiquote is indeed about "good quotations", but only from "notable people and creative works" (from the first sentence on Main Page), and these should be sourced whenever possible. (Wikiquote:Wikiquote mentions quotes that have "achieved fame" by themselves, but this means truly well-known quotes of anonymous origin, not an excuse for people to post their own sayings, which is what makes our current Anonymous article a near-total waste of computer storage.) That's not my policy or the policy of one regular editor or sysop; it is Wikimedia Foundation policy about the purposes and contents of its projects. There are many, many other quote websites that will accept quotes from anyone without establishing notability. This just isn't one of them. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per it being a pure vanity page as is made clearer by the sockpuppets which are currently going on. SorryGuy 23:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 07:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Abell

edit

Not notable. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed: Result: delete (1 user delete, 1 anon delete, helpful comment establishing nn) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Same as above. User:136.242.24.153 18.02, 31.10.05 (EST)
  • Comment: I came in too late for the vote, but I thought I'd add some research to back up the apparent vote. Abell's only mention in WP is inclusion in w:List of meteorologists, so whoever added him didn't even bother to add a stub for him. His name alone doesn't yield any results, besides the WQ article and its clones, higher than genealogical entries (for folks in earlier centuries). (I did find one reference buried in a National Weather Association page, but that was 2 Google pages past a Manchester University faculty member profile page — not encouraging.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: Deleted. — Jeffq 07:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Benzi K. Ahamed

edit

No notability, as asserted in the page. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 07:35 (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.
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: Deleted. — Jeffq 05:44, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bert Macleod

edit

No notability, google search brings up nothing useful, no external links. Possible vanity page. MosheZadka 14:24, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — LrdChaos 14:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bille joe armstrong

edit

An anonymous commentary on Armstrong and Green Day. - InvisibleSun 21:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: Deleted. --Aphaia 12:14, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Boy Franklin

edit
  • VOTE CLOSED: Deleted: 2 deleted, no dissent. --Aphaia 12:14, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Can anyone find anything about him apart from this quote? Rmhermen 14:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The only notability this person seems to have is his ability to get this single quote into several dozen quote pages. (I did find 4 other quotes, none of which are going to stop the world with their import.) Not a single web page says who this person is, nor does he show up in WP, IMDb, Amazon, or All-Music Guide. To paraphrase Billy Boy himself, "If a quote is repeated often enough, all the dumb jackasses in the world not only get to admire it, they even swear by the quotee." — Jeff Q (talk) 02:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: by the way when was it listed here by whom? By Rmhermen? --Aphaia 22:55, 28 Apr 2005 (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.
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: Deleted. — Aphaia 14:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bleed

edit

I debated whether it was a speedy. Has nothing useful except a wikipedia link to a redirect about a medical condition. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — LrdChaos 14:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob

edit

Here is Bob, the "great and nameless." Seeing no evidence for his greatness, I suggest that he become pageless as well as nameless. - InvisibleSun 02:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: kept after copyvio removal. Kalki 20:12, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Bob Dylan

edit

Bob Dylan. Potential copyright violation from [28]. Angela 21:53, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Seconded. Nanobug 23:09, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Thirded. Scarequotes 04:38, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
forthed - fonzy
fifthed. - user:zanimum
The copyvio material was removed previously, and I have just pasted some legitimate quotes of Dylan's there. If for some reason the page should be deleted to wipe the record clean, that can be done, and the current material re-pasted. I wasn't sure whether this was considered necessary or not. Kalki 20:12, 29 Jan 2004 (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.
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: Delete. — Jeff Q (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boscoe Pertwee

edit

This looks to be, at best, someone who's posted to many different forums and Usenet groups, but has no claim to notability. —LrdChaos 13:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. —LrdChaos 13:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided. The sole quote isn't even original; I'm sure we could dig up recorded comedy routines that make similar statements. (Steven Wright would be my first target, although I doubt it originated with him, either.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 14:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for now. Although, as has been mentioned, a search reveals an unnotable poster to forums and the like, it appears that there is a complication. Some of the Google results come up with a mention of Boscoe Pertwee in Umberto Eco's book Kant and the Platypus: Essays on Language and Cognition. One of the search results offers this quote from Eco: "a quotation from Boscoe Pertwee, an eighteenth century author (unknown to me) which I found in Gregory (1981:558): 'I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not so sure.'" Plainly the forum poster has derived his username from this source; but the Eco book is a nonfiction work, which would suggest that there was an earlier Boscoe Pertwee and that the quotation may count as original. The question at this point, then, is this: do we allow a page for an exceedingly obscure person (no info other than that he was eighteenth-century), or do we simply delete it and transfer the quote to some appropriate theme page, mentioning Eco's book as the source? - InvisibleSun 15:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, IMO, we don't want an article that can only ever have a single quote of such indirect sourcing. However, it would be excellent to provide a sourced version of this quote in an appropriate theme or work article, or possibly even the Eco article. (Could you explain the citation of "Gregory", InvisibleSun? I couldn't easily figure out what work this is citing. "Alastair McEwen" is the only translator I ran across.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It doesn't seem like the author would be considered notable enough to warrent a page. Koweja 17:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 121a0012 02:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 19:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boyd Rice and Friends

edit

This page was originally created as Music Martinis and Misanthropy. I moved it to its present location, intending to make it a page about the band instead of a single album, when I realized that there weren't actually any quotes from or about the album or the band, except for the text which reads like the album's liner notes. —LrdChaos 14:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: no consensus. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brand

edit

Not sure if it's about the brand concept in marketing, or something called brand. If the former, the single quote (translated) does not really fit. If the earlier, I don't know what it is. There's w:Brand (play), and if someone can find a definite link to the article, it could be kept. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 07:47 (UTC)

  • Vote closed. Result: No proper consensus for action, so effectively Kept. (Rationale: 1 Neutral; 1 anon Keep w/o signature, which MZ took the trouble to add signature; inferred MZ's implicit Keep from his article improvement. All in all, a highly irregular vote which may establish bad precendents.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless some context and evidence of notability provided. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong Keep This is a quote from the Henrik Ibsen play Brand in its Norwegian original and English translation. It links properly from his quote page. I added a link to Ibsen and the play.
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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 19:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brent weichsel

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 13:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: Deleted. — Jeffq 05:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bret Easton Ellis

edit

No quotes, just a line describing the person, and no external links MosheZadka 14:12, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — LrdChaos 14:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Hatfield

edit

Notability not demonstrated. - InvisibleSun 13:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 21:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Evans

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 16:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: Deleted. --Aphaia 29 June 2005 23:30 (UTC)

Brian Kubatz

edit

No notability, no wikipedia, google links mostly to personal sites. Likely vanity. MosheZadka 10:02, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Vote closed: Deleted. (4 deleted, no dissent) --Aphaia 29 June 2005 23:30 (UTC)
  • Delete: MosheZadka 10:02, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • If survives VfD, add back to List of people by name
      • I've restored the name to VfD already. If the community votes for deletion, its referring articles (as determined by "What links here") should be edited just before deletion. (See Wikipedia:Deletion process; we still don't have one of our own.) — Jeff Q (talk) 16:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Sorry, my bad. MosheZadka 19:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Actually, my bad. As MosheZadka pointed out to me elsewhere, I did a very similar thing removing Painkiller Supreme's entry in the proposed QOTD list during its VfD. Furthermore, the deletion-process policy is for redirects only, not necessarily for related material. I plead guilty in inconsistent application of an unwritten policy that perhaps exists only in my own mind. My only defense is that, knowing I was possibly doing something controversial, I had offered to restore the P.S. quote myself if it survived VfD. But after this comeuppance, I think my P.S. action was probably too bold, in that it could have been construed as prejudicing the vote. Or maybe I just worry too much about these shortcuts. — Jeff Q (talk) 05:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Rmhermen 17:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jeff Q (talk) 23:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability. jni June 27, 2005 06:01 (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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 06:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Morin

edit

No obvious notability, born 1992, smells like vanity. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: Delete. — Jeffq 07:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Ratkus

edit

No intro, no wp article, google search finds nothing. Possibly vanity. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 07:43 (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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 16:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broden

edit

Search for first and last name yields nothing whatsoever. - InvisibleSun 14:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closed. Result: delete (6 deletes, incl. 1 implicit; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete everything. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Broken/Wikipedia:Other Language Wikiquotes, Broken/Wikipedia:Template and Broken/Wikipedia:Help. I'm convinced we don't need them.

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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 20:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Broken" pages

edit

Bunch of pages which were broken, and some developer got them to be editable. I don't think any are useful.

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.

BT

edit

See 4 Strings.

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: delete. — Jeffq 09:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bush Administration

edit

More nonsense from 169.244.143.115. How does this article fail? Let me count the ways:

  1. Ambiguous. There have been at least 2 Bush adminstrations (counting only the U.S. government's Executive Branch).
  2. Bad title capitalization. A disambiguating page should be Bush administration, like its Wikipedia counterpart.
  3. Bad spelling, capitalization, and formatting. These, of course, are easily fixed, but is it really too much to ask for en:Wikiquote editors to demonstrate basic English competency? (I understand if English is not one's native tongue, except for those who native tongue seems to be English-based IM-speak.)
  4. Obviously manufactured quotes. This is the worst problem. Wikiquote prides itself on accuracy, but this anonymous user apparently feels (based on this article and their other contributions) that's it's more important to establish a junk article than to actually find real quotes. This is the opposite of the wiki philosophy of adding content after one collects it.
  5. No sources. Again, not an uncommon problem, but this puts the burden of making a useful article on people who are busy with other, sourceable information.

Wikiquote, like all other wikis, is a project that encourages people to invest their time to generate useful content. Littering the database with stubs filled with nonsense serves no purpose, and is but one step above vandalism. I would like to encourage this anon to make useful contributions, but others seemed to have tried with no success. Experience suggests it's a losing battle in this situation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 22:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But Chi Huen

edit
  • Not English
  • Might be Vanity
  • Rather nonsensical

Sydneyfong 15:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes, 1 Delete/Transwiki w/ emphasis on former, 1 implicit delete; no dissent; no evidence provided [at least in English]). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This looks like a typical article about a professor from an admiring college student. Google suggests this person is real, but is unlikely to rise to a wiki notability level. (I've been wrong before, however, so evidence is requested.) The WP link in the article points to a non-existent w:But Sir, and this name is not explained in the largely irrelevant WQ intro text. (The author seems to have been trying to do both a WP stub and a WQ article here, and talks more about the class than the quotee.) The intro itself is extremely POV and is unsourced. Finally, these quotes are likely all unverifiable, and seem to be the usual stuff picked up by students in class. (I admit some are entertaining; they remind me of a computer professor I had who would always say "that take cares [sic] of that".) I'm sure the instructor is interesting and honorable, but that isn't sufficient for a WQ article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. ~ UDScott 11:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Transwiki to ZH Wikiquote. I prefer to delete it, since all quotes including Chinese ones seem not so significant, but rather "favorite criches of Prof But". Even this professor is wiki-notable, the current content isn't in my humble opinion. --Aphaia 10:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: deleted. — Rmhermen 14:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

edit
  • This is almost certainly a copyright violation as it "quotes" the entire text of the song. We could shorten it to a couple quotes or, maybe better, put them on a Sesame Street page. Rmhermen 21:15, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Currently copyvio. and put a shortened one on a Sesami Street page. --Aphaia 00:28, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What Wikiquote is not #10: A place for posting the entire lyrics of songs. (Much as I might wish we could. ☺) — Jeff Q (talk) 03:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

-Deleted. Rmhermen 14:39, 12 Apr 2005 (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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 23:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cara Gentile

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 19:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jaxl 17:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Somsen

edit

Notability not demonstrated. - InvisibleSun 07:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 13:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Crouch

edit

Not notable: Publications in [29] are few and have no books. General consensus for Professor notability is "widely cited research or publication of a book". ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: deleted.. — Aphaia 16:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Catz

edit

Is it also quotes? Seems to me like an advertisement or just vanity ...--Aphaia 4 July 2005 23:55 (UTC)

  • Vote closed: Result: deleted. (2 deletes, no dissent). --Aphaia 16:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A misspelling of the name of a character from a video game known only for one quote ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 5 July 2005 01:48 (UTC)
  • Delete. If it contained quotes, they would belong in Zero Wing, which follows our current practice of placing character quotes in book/show/film/videogame articles unless and until they have a substantial extant collection of their own. All this is is a copy-n-paste of a history page from the cited website. — Jeff Q (talk) 5 July 2005 03:58 (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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 05:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chaitanya Kamisetty

edit

Marked for VfD by User:Aphaia but not listed here. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless giving info about notability. Google result[30]. And thank you Moshe again for your listing. --Aphaia 08:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless evidence provided of notability. It's a shame, too; I like the second quote. (I wonder about the originality of the first one, given my recollection of such statements from Juran quality training back in the early '80s.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 22:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, Prince of Wales

edit

A collection of redlinks from removing articles after transwiking to wikisource. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 05:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Murphy

edit

No quotes. ~ UDScott 16:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: Deleted. — Jeffq 07:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charon

edit

Encyclopedic stub. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 8 July 2005 14:01 (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.
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: Deleted. — Aphaia 09:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CHHS Improv

edit

No wikipedia article. Besides people mentioning it as a resume item, there's http://www.hanestheatre.com/theatre/improv.html which gives some information. Notability seems not very high, and the quotes seem inherently unverifiable. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:25, 25 Jun 2005 (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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 14:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Elliott

edit

This page has no quotes, and the text is inaccurate (the actor on the show is Christopher Meloni). UDScott 12:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: deleted. Aphaia 23:30, 29 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Chippindale

edit

Wikipedia is a link to a non-existing article and no quotes. MosheZadka 06:38, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Vote closed: Deleted (3 deletes, no dissent) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aphaia (talk • contribs) 23:30, 29 June 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete MosheZadka 06:38, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've added a link to provide confirmation of this person's existence, for what it's worth. — Jeff Q (talk) 11:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: If someone were to find a half-way verifiable quote and put it there, I would change my vote. But as is, I couldn't find anything via a google search or otherwise. MosheZadka 13:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --RPickman 19:33, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No expectation of any quotes. — Jeff Q (talk) 23:38, 24 Jun 2005 (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.
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: delete. — LrdChaos 15:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Oldfield

edit

Notability not demonstrated. Wikipedia link leads to nonexistent site (quite a trend lately for these vanity pages). - InvisibleSun 03:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: Delete. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Izzo

edit

Notability not demonstrated. - InvisibleSun 20:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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.
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: deleted. — Jeffq 07:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clarence McCoy

edit

Not notable. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 18:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC) (also Image:Mccoy.jpg)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 20:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton Moore

edit

Not notable. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 16:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 15:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clive Revill

edit

Another quoteless quote article. I've asked the anonymous user who created both this and Ian McDiarmid to collect quotes from his/her subjects before creating quote articles, instead of creating encyclopedia stubs. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: Delete. — Jeffq 10:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Closing session of the 5th Meeting on Globalization and Development held in Havana, Cuba

edit
  • Transwikied to Wikisource. We lack a developed transwiki procedure so I thought requested deletion here was appropriate. Rmhermen 13:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: Delete (2 Deletes, 1 implicit Delete; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: perhaps it could be speedy deletion candidate in future. --Aphaia 22:51, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. jni 07:09, 29 Apr 2005 (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.
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: Delete. — Jeff Q (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clothes

edit

This page contains only a single quote; it only mentions clothes, but is not substantially about clothes. —LrdChaos 20:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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.
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: delete. — LrdChaos 15:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Coiffed hair and california coolers are too much for a head full of acid"

edit

Article created for a quote by an unnamed author. Search yields no results. - InvisibleSun 02:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 17:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Col. Rob Parker

edit

No quotes. ~ UDScott 12:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: Deleted. — Jeffq 12:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Collis Hardenbergh

edit

No intro, no wp, google hits point to personal homepages. Suspect vanity. Left a message to the only contributor that this is VfDed, asked for notability. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 08:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concrete Hippo

edit

I'm not even sure what this is - is it a hoax? It appears that this page had been previously deleted at wikipedia, but was recreated today (to coincide with the creation of a page on wikiquote). ~ UDScott 22:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 02:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conor somerville

edit

Not notable and no quotes. ~ UDScott 19:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: deleted. — Kalki 23:34, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Copy of Wikipedia main page

edit

Copy of Wikipedia Main Page. No longer need as non-sysops can now view the source of the Wikipedia main page. Angela 04:28, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If no one objects I will delete this after waiting a week. — Kalki 20:51, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
This has been deleted — Kalki 23:34, 3 Mar 2004 (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.
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: Deleted. --Aphaia 29 June 2005 23:30 (UTC)

Craig Collie

edit

Was tagged with the VfD template, but not listed here. MosheZadka 06:02, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Vote closed. Deleted (2 deleted, no dissent). --Aphaia 29 June 2005 23:30 (UTC)
  • Comment: I can't guess the context of this quote, but is there any relation to this guy? --Aphaia 21:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Based on the context provided by the article creator ("craig's stoned idea of what we should do"; emphasis mine), this is an obvious vanity page (and probably has nothing to do with Aphaia's cited author(s), Craig Van Collie). — Jeff Q (talk) 23:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability, vanity one-liner. jni June 27, 2005 06:03 (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.
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: Deleted.. — Aphaia 9 July 2005 03:50 (UTC)

Current events

edit

The content of this article is not what it professes to be and is quite inappropriate for the main article space, however admirable its intent was. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • VOTE CLOSED: Result: Deleted. (2 deletes, no dissent). --Aphaia 9 July 2005 03:50 (UTC)
  • Delete unless there's a compelling reason to protect it from ongoing vandalism, and even then, it should have a more appropriate (restrained) message. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rmhermen 14:02, 25 Jun 2005 (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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 14:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cuzco

edit

No quotes. UDScott 21:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 09:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D. Granosalis

edit

See Talk:D. Granosalis, where the author implies that that these quotations are from unpublished notes, and w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. Granosalis. Uncle G 05:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. ~ Kalki 19:09, 11 March 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Aubrey

edit

It is not appropriate to put information on such an obscure person among the articles at Wikiquote. Placing this information on a user page, where it should be moved, could be appropriate and amusing. Placing it in among the articles is neither. ~ Achilles 12:44, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete or move to user page. --TOR 21:35, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Technical problems with the software prevent deleting this at this time. The developers are aware of the problem. ~ Kalki
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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 15:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel dawson

edit

Daniel Dawson has a talent for drinking. We ourselves have a talent for deleting. His notability has not been demonstrated. - InvisibleSun 23:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note:The above three "Keep" votes were made by User:194.72.50.161, who was then blocked after vandalizing my userpage six times. - InvisibleSun 09:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 23:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Mawson

edit

This seems to be a vanity page. The page does not assert notability of any kind, and a quick Google search of the name returns only 208 results; compare this to my unique and entirely non-notable username, which returns 86,800. I haven't delved into Wikiquote's policies and guidelines yet, so I tread blindly on VFD grounds. // Pathoschild 01:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes. 1 implicit delete; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd say it should be moved to a user page, but it was created by an anon. —LrdChaos 02:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. ~ UDScott 11:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advising vanity-page posters on establishing user pages for their quotes is, like all other wiki activities, completely voluntary. I try to do so whenever a registered user creates a vanity page, because they've invested at least a tiny bit more effort than anons in establishing themselves. (Plus, it's often easy to match the vanity article to the user name.) I don't usually bother with anons because that would add quite a bit of work, and I'm already spread way too thin. But anyone can do this anytime, for as many or as few article creators as they wish. It's always possible that the anon you advise will welcome the assistance and eventually become a valuable member of the Wikiquote community. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 16:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Darius Peczek

edit

Google led me to a bunch of amazon.com review under the same name. Supposingly vanity. Aphaia 20:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 23:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Booth

edit

The subject of this page doesn't seem to be notable, and the quotations are of dubious value. // Pathoschild 01:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 20:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Bradley

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 14:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — LrdChaos 16:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Epstein

edit

Notability not demonstrated. All the links are bogus. - InvisibleSun 20:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 05:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David F. Embree

edit

No notability (a lot of people fought in the civil war). ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 05:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Frasier

edit

No obvious notability, no wp article. Seems like vanity. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 03:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: Deleted. — Jeffq 07:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Kline

edit

No wp article, single quote unsourced, no intro, google search points to half-a-dozen different people (violinist, farmer) and to wq. Suspect vanity ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 8 July 2005 13:06 (UTC)

Second discussion -- should have been a SPEEDY

No wp, no intro, quote unsourced, google hits point to different people with WQ being the fifth. Probably vanity. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 13:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Kretch

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 13:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 12:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David L. Abbott

edit

While there is an actual person by this name (a martial artist), the list of quotes are highly suspect. ~ UDScott 11:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — LrdChaos 16:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David radwaner

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 11:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 23:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Shilobod

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 19:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 00:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Tabriz

edit

21-year-old student, article created by Dtabriz. Almost certainly a vanity page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — LrdChaos 20:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Vaughan

edit

Non-notable person. Wikipedia has pages for two people with this name, but this doesn't appear to correspond to either. This is probably a vanity page, based on the single quote. —LrdChaos 18:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: deleted. ~ Kalki

Death by Stereo

edit

Death by Stereo isn't a quote page. It's just a copy of the Wikipedia entry and includes no quotes whatsoever. -- Jeff Q 09:47, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

This was deleted ~ Kalki
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.
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: delete.~ Kalki 19:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Death By Stereo

edit

This article has been listed VfD since May 7th by Jeffq. I understand this article is not a big concern, but I say the sooner we resolve the problem the better. PEACE ~ RoboAction 05:22, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would vote to delete. Article is a year old and as yet doesn't contain a single quote.--Sasquach 22:49, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There's a bit of confusion about this page. I had nominated Death by Stereo (note the lowercase "by") for deletion, and Kalki subsequently deleted it. This is a different title, with a capitalized "By", but it appears to have the same non-quote, Wikipedia-stub content that the other one had. There should be no reason to keep it, either. — Jeff Q (talk) 03:15, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Technical problems with the software prevent deleting this at this time. ~ Kalki 19:09, 11 Mar 2005 (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.
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: delete. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delo McKown

edit

No intro, no wp article, google hits point to this and one other quote in various quote collections. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 08:17 (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.
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: Delete. — Jeff Q (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deneme tahtası

edit

This page has been tagged as needing translation since April. Since then, two editors have touched the page without translating any of it; the latest edit (which, like that anon's prev edit to the article) removed the {{translation}} tag and dramatically altered the content of the page, while still not providing any sort of translation. —LrdChaos 17:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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.
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: deleted.. — Aphaia 9 July 2005 03:50 (UTC)

Derek Devenpeck

edit

No wikipedia article, google search has three mildly relevant results mentioning this guy in passing. Probably vanity. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 01:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Vote Closes: Result: deleted. (3 deletes, no dissent). --Aphaia 9 July 2005 03:50 (UTC)
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 01:40, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. jni June 27, 2005 06:16 (UTC)
  • Delete unless notability evidence provided. — Jeff Q (talk) 28 June 2005 05:09 (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.
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: Deleted. --Aphaia 22:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Despair.com

edit

Blatant advertising (the site sells various parphanelia with these parodies). MosheZadka 13:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • VOTE CLOSED: Deleted (4 deleted, no dissent). --Aphaia 22:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete MosheZadka 13:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This reads more like a stub of a Wikipedia article, and is a shill for a new book, as MosheZadka says. The book "even features a valid ISBN barcode, which virtually assures its quality". If and when this book actually becomes available outside corporate seminars (like on Amazon, where it currently isn't) and someone without a commercial interest actually provides some quotes, it might make a useful article. — Jeff Q (talk) 14:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Slight amendment to above: if the book, The Art of Demotivation, becomes available, that might make a useful topic for an article. An article titled "Despair.com" doesn't strike me as useful in any case. — Jeff Q (talk) 14:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I blanked it (for reviewing, you can read it from history). In my opinion advertisement could be a speedy candidate. --Aphaia 16:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advert for a non-notable website. jni 06:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've reverted the blanking of the article. VfD exists to allow the community to judge an article; people shouldn't have to examine the history to do so. This isn't obvious spam, which would make it speedy-deletable; it merely provides an un-Wikiquote-like description of something with virtually no quotes and provides an inappropriate commercial link. In my opinion, it should have the same right to be reviewed as a potential copyvio or other questionable material. — Jeff Q (talk) 11:05, 10 Jun 2005 (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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 14:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dexter Holland

edit

No quotes. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 14:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: Speedy-deleted, no meaningful content. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diege

edit

I'm not sure whether this is supposed to be about a person named "Diege", or just some pointless thing that a nobody ("Dylan Jeffrys") said. Either way, it isn't worth keeping around.

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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 05:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Die Hard 4.0

edit

This film does not yet exist, it probably won't have this (working) title, and there's no way we can confirm quotes from it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 16:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dillon

edit

Another vanity article from a non-notable person. ~ UDScott 14:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: Deleted. ~ Kalki 19:09, 11 March 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dillon Chung

edit
  • Looks like advertising, not quotes from a notable person. Rmhermen 18:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Deleted ~ Kalki
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.
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: deleted. — MosheZadka 02:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitris Varos

edit

And its subsidiary, Phryne. Suspected as vanities, though it indicates the person as an poet.

  • On googling the top results are his own site and directory entries to this site (it seldom happens for notable people; first his or her own site and followed many descriptions on the other sites)
  • No result on amazon.com for this author.
  • Wikipedia has it but posted by an anon (dns can't be solved) and edited by the anon who posted those articles to Wikiquote from a certain Greek ISP.

In my opinion the poster of this article would be better to go first to the Greek Wikiquote. Currently it seems this person is not notable in English speaking world.--Aphaia 22:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Vote closed: Result deleted after an extension (2 Deletes, no valid dissent [no Keep vote was signed]) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MosheZadka (talk • contribs) 02:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Concur with Aphaia's assessment, adding that Amazon UK also has no record of Varos's works, and noting the diligence with which both the WP and WQ anons have inserted one-line references of his works into various articles (not necessarily wrong, but suspiciously like fancruft given Aphaia's info). — Jeff Q (talk) 00:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is a remarkable poetry. Works of Varos you will find in many Anthologies and magazines - and lyrics of him in some of the best art-songs in Greece.
    • Above is Anon vote, moved by aphaia due to chronological order; submitted by anon. If an anon is eligible to vote, see also WQ:VP Aphaia 28 June 2005 15:45 (UTC))
  • Comment: another datum: from google, keyword "Δημήτρης Βάρος" (his name in Greek alphabet) we get 257 results, and a substub without quote on Greek Wikiquote is the 20th result[35] (and Wikiquote in Greek became active very recently - on April or May). I put a question on this talk on Greek Wikiquote, but now doubt if we need to wait any responce ...
  • Delete: See also ... --Aphaia 4 July 2005 23:57 (UTC)
    • Comment: I got a mail from Greek Wikiquoter. He or she doesn't know this person (so his notability is now challanged more strongly) but show the suspect if another poetic page is copyvio. --Aphaia 7 July 2005 02:24 (UTC)
  • Keep. Is a search engine a trustworthy source for notable persons?

I’ m a Greek publisher and visitor of this site. Dimitris Varos is one of the best poets of modern times (after military junta 1967-1974) here in Greece. At least two of his books, “Θηρασία” and “Φρύνη” by “Kastaniotis Editions” are the most significant poetic works of last decades. – George Panagiotou.

    • Above comment added by User:80.76.61.3 ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 08:11 (UTC)
      • Comment: According to the history, the first keep vote was from the same IP address, 80.76.61.3. --Aphaia 7 July 2005 11:22 (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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 07:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Robert Starkey

edit

No quotes. ~ UDScott 19:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless quotes are added (and the descriptive text is minimized, or moved to wikipedia). ~ UDScott 19:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This Wikipedia article (it certainly isn't a Wikiquote article) reads like it was written by the subject himself, but in third person. Worse, it seems designed to promote his business projects, violating both the vanity and commercial policies of MediaWiki projects. Notability is unpromising as well. Google on "DJ Robert Starkey" gets only 7 distinct hits, the top 2 of which are from Wikiquote, one being this VfD page! Of the four sites mentioned, two (Movin-Tunes and SDADJA.org) have no Alexa data at all, ADJA.org (American Disc Jockey Assoc.) has an Alexa rating of 225K, and Outsidethebox.biz, apparently a business services site for DJs, has one of 83K (up from 257K). No reason to transwiki; WP wouldn't want it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 22:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Scrodanus

edit

No intro, no wp, no google results (at all!). Smells like vanity. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Freakin Awesome!

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 03:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Nick Riviera

edit

This page is for a character on The Simpsons, and has only one quote, which isn't really worth merging.

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.
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: Deleted. — Jeffq 07:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dogbert's New Ruling Class

edit

This just a copy of a large excerpt from DNRC. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 8 July 2005 14:24 (UTC)

  • Vote closed. Result: Deleted (2 Deletes; no dissent). Merged quote w/ Scott Adams before deleting. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless replaced by actual quotes from DNRC ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 8 July 2005 14:24 (UTC)
  • Delete after moving quote to Scott Adams. The DNRC is a creation of Scott Adams, so supposed quotes from it are actually better placed in his article. The Dilbert Newsletter from which it comes is free as in cost, but still copyrighted, but Adams also explicitly recommends "forward[ing] this Holy Place argument to any Induhviduals", which is hard to interpret through the humor. I would suggest moving the quote unless someone makes a case that it should be deleted completely, but the article should be deleted either way. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 01:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dom Reeve

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 12:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 03:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don Roche

edit

No wp article, intro smells like vanity, no external references given. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 16:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Dixon

edit

Article created without quotes. Delete unless it is developed. InvisibleSun 04:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 15:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Harvest College

edit

More probably [commercially motivated] content and pseudoendorsement (although not linked to fronk page this time, as far as I can tell). See Obeng de Lawrence and Wikipedia AfD entries [[36]] [[37]] -- Jamorama 15:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 18:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duke Nukem vs. South Park

edit

No notability. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — LrdChaos 14:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Gawrylow

edit

Non-notable person, and this is probably a vanity page, since the creator is Dgawrylow (talk · contributions). I've posted {{vanity-warn}} on their talk page. —LrdChaos 22:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. —LrdChaos 22:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided for now. It seems quite likely that this is a vanity article, but Gawrylow may actually be notable. His WP article (also created by a User:Dgawrylow whose sole edits are for his article) lists some accomplishments and publications. I suspect a WP notability review would reveal him not to rise above the thousands of political bloggers and activists who don't merit their own articles (especially as a 2005 college grad), but I don't have time at the moment to do enough basic research to feel comfortable nominating his WP article for AfD to initiate such a review. On the other hand, w:Wikipedia:Autobiography's current policy says:
    Avoid writing or editing articles about yourself, since we all find objectivity especially difficult when we ourselves are concerned. Such articles frequently violate neutrality, verifiability, and notability guidelines.
    and
    Creating or editing an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it will likely be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself.
    which may be enough to warrant a fast AfD on WP, regardless of the documentation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. - InvisibleSun 23:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 121a0012 17:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Koweja 17:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 13:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Deleted articles E-H

edit
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: Delete. --Aphaia 18:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Thought

edit

Like [[Favorite]] we deleted recently, it will be not feasible. (Confucism, Taoism, several schools of Buddhism including Zen, Hinduism, Jainaism, Islamic thought and so on ...) unless we use it as a portal not a simple article. -Aphaia 00:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 05:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Chavez

edit

High-school coach with no WP article. Almost certainly not WP/WQ-notable. Quotes not sourced; very likely just students' recollections. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 19:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Howdershelt

edit

Voted for deletion on wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ed Howdershelt ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 03:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 19:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Segoura

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 01:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed: Result: delete (4 delete, one keep from originator with unclear reasoning, one keep from user determined to disrupt VfDs) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 19:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless evidence of notability is provided. This appears to be a Wikipedia user, and does not appear to be anyone notable. ~ UDScott 01:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete concur with UDScott. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 02:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The WP user doesn't appear to have realized we have the same notability requirements for quote articles that WP does for encyclopedia articles, nor that VFD tags should not be removed before vote closure. I've posted notes about these 2 points to the talk pages of the 2 anon users either are Segoura or favor his article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I gave You folks to drop the page right then and there, clearly pointing out that it's not worth keeping up. But if the page must stay with deletion tags then will not vote delete for My own pages. And yes, the previous anonymous IP was used by Me, though it is shared. -- EddieSegoura 09:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sysops must follow policy for VFD, just like any user. Once an article has been nominated, it must remain here for at least 2 weeks unless a specific case for speedy deletion is appropriate. We have no SD case for deleting an actual quote article from an unnotable person short of a libel precedent. HOWEVER, we do have a (possibly never used) clause — SD case #7 — that implies that editors (not just sysops) may move main-namespace articles that are appropriate as user pages into the user namespace, then delete the redirect after a few days. (It still refers to "Wikipedia" instead of "Wikiquote" — another indication that we need to put some effort into updating WQ:SD.) I will ask Eddie if this would satisfy him. I'm convinced he just wasn't aware of our "no-vanity article" policy and made a common mistake. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't agree with such a rule, redirecting or moving (whichever one suits (talk) best) is okay with Me -- EddieSegoura 04:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 22:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie's Stories

edit

The page admits that the person is non-notable at this time ("not a well known man"), and this page seems like it's just an attempt to draw more people to the linked website. —LrdChaos 13:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: deleted. — MosheZadka 17:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Dowling

edit

No wp article, no intro, google hits are wikiquote and mirrors, and this [38] pointing to a 19th century australian (the quote implies the speaker is an american). ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 15:16 (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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 04:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Rae

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 14:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: Deleted. — Jeffq 14:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ekaangi

edit

It appears not unlikely that such an indian movie exists, based on links. It has a couple of hits, http://www.ekaangi.com is no longer alive, IMDB has "Ekaanki" as a '78 movie which doesn't have five users who bothered to vote on the page and there is no wikipedia article. This is on the border I guess, which is why I am not voting, but I am wondering if it should be deleted? ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 14:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: Deleted (2 Deletes; 1 implicit Neutral; no dissent; no clear idea what this article is about; no response from original editor). I acknowledge that this is a controversial decision. The vote was extended several times (the record of which I've left here), then left rather open-ended, with no one in the community responding firmly one way or another for a considerable time. Because of this, I invite any Wikiquotians who feel this article did not get a fair shake to bring it up on the Village pump. If this happens, we may need to formalize an Undeletion policy. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote extended to 0:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC) awaiting email response from original editor. — Jeff Q (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote extended to 0:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC) by ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 12:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've given it a few more days. Any idea what to do about it? ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 12:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We have to assume there will be no e-mail from the original editor. Given that, does anyone have a vote? Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 12:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not sure we can still count votes on these continued extensions, since we haven't solidified policy yet. But in general, I maintain that, in the absence of easily determined notability (like IMDb for films), any editor should provide some evidence of notability if they don't want the article deleted. Whatever "Ekaangi" is, is appears to be so unnotable that even the article's author can't be bothered to justify it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We have two possibilities in my opinion, to say "delete, because no one wants to keep it explicitely" and to say "keep, because no concensus has been made". As for notability I found a link [39]. I suppose IMDb is not perfect to cover non English films. Sometimes I find IMDb has no information about popular (so-called mega hit) Japanese films. I agree on this film has no notability in the English-speaking world, but two websites suggest its potential notability in India. So I would like to ask our Indian editors, if possible, like in the case of Rajinikaant. --Aphaia 16:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aphaia, your link above points to Ekaangi itself. It can hardly be its own evidence of notability. ☺ We've established in other VFDs that if works that are so unknown in the English world that a modest amount of research that turns up nothing significant, we can reasonably delete them unless someone helps us out. I believe the only real reason we're still having this discussion is that no one else is available to hunt this down, because all our active editors are tied up on other issues. If we don't start forcing one-time editors to justify their unheard-of contributions, Wikiquote will become a collection of vanity pages and obscure articles with no sources. Until we get 20-30 conscientious editors, we can't afford to humor people who slap unsourced stuff into WQ and disappear. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete concured by Jeff. Anyway deletion wouldn't disturb further submission, so seems no harmful. We have been waiting for a good enough time, or not? --Aphaia 14:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Technically, if someone resubmitted the article, it would be subject to speedy deletion per Wikiquote:Speedy deletions, case #5. Personally, I would welcome a new submission if it explained what this thing is supposed to be. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: We may need to refine our speedy deletion policy. "An artcle under the same title with already deleted article AND with the same content with the deleted one" like that. Personally I would welcome a new submission if expanded fairly and enlighting us what Ekaangi is. ;-) --Aphaia 10:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 18:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic games

edit

Redundant to Category:Electronic games. Each attempts to list all the games that are sources of quotes, but the former has to be updated manually. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seahen (talk • contribs) 22:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (4 Deletes; no dissent). I've changed all relevant links in the main article space to Category:Electronic games. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seahen 17:20 22:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC) [time corrected by Jeff Q][reply]
  • Delete, concur with Seahen. ~ UDScott 12:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If deleted, this would set a precedent as our first deletion of a major category's mostly-redundant list article. There are disadvantages to this (primarily in the ease of viewing all members of a category, including subcategories), but I think they're outweighed by the maintenance nightmare and the misinformation provided by an inadequately maintained list. (MediaWiki should eventually provide a solution to a collapsed view of categories.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. List articles don't work well in MediaWiki, since they require human maintenence every time a relevant article is created or deleted, and too often, they never are, since many people aren't aware of the existence of corresponding list articles for categories. The one advantage to a list, seeing all the related articles without having to peek into subcategories, doesn't really come into play in this case, since there's only one subcategory of Category:Electronic games (Category:Final Fantasy (series)), and none of the entries in the subcategory appear in the list (instead, the Final Fantasy page is linked, but doesn't link to any of the invididual game pages; I'll try to clean that up a bit later today, if I have time). —LrdChaos 15:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: Deleted. — Jeffq 06:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Elizabeth Lank

edit

I changed this from a speedy delete because this person appears to be at least slightly notable, with one claimed publication. Her biography[40], apparently self-written, and the solitary current, rather inane quote, suggests this could be a vanity page. I think we should give the community a chance to review it. — Jeff Q (talk) 03:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: Deleted (2 Deletes; 1 observation w/o vote; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 06:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I listed this as a speedy. I believe that this isn't a quote but an attempt to ask the community here a question that should have gone on the Reference Desk or Village Pump. I could be wrong. Rmhermen 14:24, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I believe it is a question, too. More appropriate to Reference Desk. But I don't deny the possibility her book ( I found it on amazon.com) contains this phrase ... --Aphaia 16:22, 12 Apr 2005 (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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 19:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott rock

edit

Non-notable "[l]ocal philosophical guru" with no WP page or relevant Google hits. —LrdChaos 15:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 23:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Potter

edit

This is a biographical note, without quotations, for someone whose notability is lacking. - InvisibleSun 04:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closed. Result: delete (5 Deletes, 1 implicit delete; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: deleted. — MosheZadka 17:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Riebe

edit

No wp article, no intro, google points to wikiquote and mirrors. Date of birth (1987) leads me to suspect this is vanity. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 15:20 (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.
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: deleted. ~ Kalki 21:29, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Britannica

edit

I think it is a very bad idea to add pages for quotations from either specific Encyclopedias, or Newspapers or magazines. The scope is simply too broad, and the copyright issues, if too extensive a collection was eventually gathered, would be immense. Quotations from Newspapers in various articles on people and themes are fine, but I think quotes from current encyclopedias or dictionaries should generally be avoided, even in various articles. If no one expresses strong objections I intend to delete this page within the week. ~ Kalki 16:39, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC) Similar arguments were made in the objections about "Netcraft" articles above. ~ Kalki 16:44, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This has been deleted ~ Kalki 21:29, 21 Nov 2004 (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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 16:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Engy Badran

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 14:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: Deleted. — Jeffq 05:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eric Fulton

edit

No trace of notability in Wikipedia or Google (only high-school and genealogical records). Has the markings of a vanity page, although it was created by a (newly) registered user. If deleted, should also remove his quote from Morality. — Jeff Q (talk) 03:42, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 04:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erich Ludendorff

edit

No quotes. ~ UDScott 12:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 06:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ezra Deutsch-Feldman

edit

"Very little is known" is probably a euphemism for "is unnotable" ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 04:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Face Off

edit

No quotes, just what appears to be a single line from a review. —LrdChaos 15:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: Deleted. --Aphaia 03:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

edit

We do not have character pages for any other characters on Buffy, most quotes would be dialogues anyway. I've already added a few "five-by-five" themed quotes to the Buffy the Vampire Slayer page. MosheZadka 06:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Vote closed: Deleted. (3 deletes, no dissent; for "expand" vote, see below). --Aphaia 03:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete MosheZadka 06:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The Buffy page is very thorough, so Faith quotes have a good forum already. --RPickman 20:50, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, but with some reservation. This is a recurring issue and will only become more visible as Wikiquote grows. Just as individual's quotes are duplicated in theme pages, it can be useful to have some character quotes in their own pages as well as show pages, especially for show articles as large and as heavily formatted as Buffy… but only if the character has a large number of pithy quotes listed. That is not currently the case for Faith, but it is for Darth Vader and other Star Wars characters. — Jeff Q (talk) 05:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Expand I suggest someone make more quotes from her charicter. --Admiral Roo 18:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't count this vote, because it was voted after the deadline. --Aphaia 03:08, 23 Jun 2005 (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.
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: Delete. — Jeff Q (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fan Noli

edit

This page has been tagged as needing translation since April. Since then, the only contribution to the page was the addition of an English-language introduction. The sole quote, however, was not translated. —LrdChaos 17:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless a translation is provided. —LrdChaos 17:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless a translation is provided. I don't like calling for the deletion of an article about a clearly notable person that actually has a quote, but our audience is English readers, so translations to English are essential. Surely if Noli is notable within the global English-speaking community, he has had someone translate his important quotes? Google suggests the one cited hasn't been so treated, whatever it says. Albanian isn't even close enough to a more common language for me to attempt a rough translation for further research, and it has barely more speakers than the population of the Washington, DC metro area. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. - InvisibleSun 01:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 121a0012 02:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 19:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fast and the Furious 3: Tokyo Drift

edit

This appears to be an article for a June 2006 film which is still either in pre-production or possibly in production, so its claimed quotes are highly dubious. (Never mind the formatting issues, the lack of any WP or other links, no references, and the likely title error [supposedly it's Fast and Furious 3: Tokyo].) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 19:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fast Lane

edit

I'm not sure why such a page would be considered notable or necessary. What's next -- ATMs? EZ-Pass tollbooths? ~ UDScott 11:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that the deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikiquote editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikiquote, and particularly, to this article, are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely by the closing Administrator.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, or making your opinion known here, no matter how new you may be: we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff, because this is not a vote. Please review Wikiquote:Deletion policy for more information.

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (4 Deletes; 1 Keep from minimally participating editor, 4 Keeps discounted for lack of any other WQ contributions). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 11:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the quotes are memorable, and it's really a pointless page. —LrdChaos 12:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Actually, w:Fast Lane is about a toll booth, so I think it should get precedence over the WalMart checkout machine. "Please insert $1.00 toll", and all that. Seriously, I completely agree with UDScott and LrdChaos. None of these is a quote-worthy subject. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A vanity page for a machine: I'm almost impressed. Open the pod bay doors, HAL. - InvisibleSun 15:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An existentially humorous quotes page. The quotes of an item we encounter in everday life, but how many of us have stopped to consider it?Digital Subjunctive 05:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I owe this machine my allegiance. I refuse to have it torn from my bloody hands again.Beanland 04:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am amazed that anybody would dare vote to delete such a page. Have none of you looked into the face of this great machine and pondered what it could possibly be going on in its mind? These quotes are the only glimpse we get into its conscience, and you wish to do away with them. "Pointless"? Nay, my friend. Profound.MrPoland 04:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is nothing in the current world more prominent than emerging technology such as this. These machines are fast becoming part of our everyday lives, and are more than noteworthy. I am anchored into the position of defending this article. This is now. This is life. John Pierce 10:57, 9 June 2006
  • Keep. I cannot believe that anywould would want to rid me of my whole connection to this "Wal-Mart" Khubal 5:17, 9 June 2006
  • Note: User:MrPoland and User:Khubal have each only made one edit, which was their vote here. User:John Pierce has made two edits, one to vote here and one to create a user page. Possible sockpuppetry, and even if it isn't, they are new users with no other contributions before or since. —LrdChaos 15:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There is no doubt in my mind that most of the quotes stated by this machine will light some inner feeling within most hearts. Whether the saying "Thank you for shopping at Wal-Mart" incites a feeling of hatred towards corporate greed, outsourcing and competition, or a sense of comfort, nostalgia, or convienience, it should not matter: They are still recognizable by most of the world, and I believe have a part on this Wikiquote. Beanland 19:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: delete. — jni 09:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ferengi Rules of Aqusition

edit

Misspelled page, not strictly "quotes", copied wholesale from http://www.dmwright.com/html/ferengi.htm. MosheZadka 01:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: Unambiguous delete. jni 09:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: MosheZadka 01:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As MZ said, the title is misspelled. Also, Wikipedia already has Rules of Acquisition, which is much more likely to be accurate than a fan page. A proper Wikiquote article would include a small subset of "favorites" from the list, but should probably not include the entire list. — Jeff Q (talk) 04:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Clarification: In this peculiar circumstance, removing quotes (and verifying remaining ones are accurate) might actually enable this article to pass the "improved enough" test mentioned in WQ:DP#Decision policy. It would still have to be moved to a properly-spelled title. — Jeff Q (talk) 04:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jeff Q said. We have collections or extracts , not the whole text (specially of copyrighted ones) --Aphaia 20:22, 11 Jun 2005 (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.
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: deleted. — Jeffq 17:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fintin O'Brien

edit

No wp article, no intro, no sources for the quotes, google first hit points to a hoax reverted on wikipedia. Seems the hoaxers decided to try WQ for a while. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 08:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 02:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Gehry

edit

No quotes. While the person is certainly notable enough to merit a page, if quotes can be found, all we have now is a (POV) intro. A quick search of mine didn't turn up any quotes to add; perhaps someone else can fill it in. —LrdChaos 13:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: deleted.. — Aphaia 20:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Tyger

edit

Wp article is completely content-free, no intro, no sources for the quotes, only google hits are quote sites as far as the eye can see. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: deleted. — Jeff Q (talk) 04:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Franz Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria

edit

No quotes. Just an overly simplistic and somewhat awkward statement of who he is. Yes, someone might someday add material here, but it seems unlikely, and the only text on the page isn't really accurate. — Jeff Q 07:03, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. We create here a consupmtion of quotations - not biographies. --Aphaia 17:22, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. — Jeff Q (talk) 04:47, 1 Apr 2005 (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.
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: Deleted. — Aphaia 00:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Friday

edit

Apparent vanity page by someone who admits to being inebriated while editing it. Was nominated but not listed for VfD. — Jeff Q (talk) 22:34, 19 Apr 2005 (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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 23:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G-unit

edit

While there is a notable rap group called G-unit, and it seems this page is intended to be about them, it's mostly gibberish. None of the "quotes" turn up in a search except to here. —LrdChaos 20:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 15:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Cushley

edit

Name search reveals nothing notable. - InvisibleSun 11:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Emlynisnota, having voted three times on this nomination and having been warned after the second time, is now blocked from editing for two weeks. - InvisibleSun 11:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.96.88.214 (talk • contribs) 31 July 2006, 09:10 (UTC)
    • Comment: This user has no meaningful contributions; other than this vote, they created the Kevin McCarron page which is up for deletion, and vandalism of UDScott's user page. —LrdChaos 13:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Please, by all means delete this little experiment, but honeslty, you people have way too much time on your hands. Bound to be English!, Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.96.88.214 (talk • contribs) 1 August 2006, 14:56 (UTC)
        • It's not that we have time to waste: it's being wasted by those who create worthless articles. We are then compelled, as a matter of fairness, to do searches on the subjects and quotes in these articles and to put them to a vote. Speaking of wasted time: do you think you might actually manage to sign your comments, instead of hiding behind anonymity and leaving it to others to supply your signature? - InvisibleSun 15:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: Deleted. — Jeffq 11:24, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Wilmott

edit

"Let's go and vandalize Wikiquote and Wikipedia" - this quote was the first warning sign. Further evidence from other projects made me to conclude this is a work of w:User:Gazwim. Looking at deleted revisions of w:Gary Wilmott we find: 

    *  01:45, 2 Dec 2004 . . Norm (The Gary Wilmott vandal returns)
    * 09:14, 1 Dec 2004 . . 212.219.56.244 ()
    * 14:40, 11 Oct 2004 . . Gazwim (Redirect)

where the earliest revision is a redirect to Gazwim's user page and second is the same IP as is the sole author of the quote page. Delete since this appears to be a page about a non-notable Wikipedian who has a history of vandalism. jni 18:18, 28 Apr 2005 (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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 16:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Markham

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 19:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissenting votes [though strong dissent from unregistered author]; no evidence of notability provided). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless evidence of notability is provided. ~ UDScott 19:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Concur with UDScott. The current article itself establishes this person's non-notability: "His work has failed to gain international recognition, largely due to the lack of promotion or publication that he has recieved [sic] and his life of relative obscurrity [sic] deep in the Dorset countryside." ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • geoffrey markham has been an inspiiration to numerous generations of bryanston school students and to delete this article would be very unfair. although his work may not have gained "international recognition" within dorset he is a local hero. why would you deny this man a webpage, everthing listed is legitimate and people will want to know more about this great man if not now then most certainly in the future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.224.207.61 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a question of how good or decent the subject is. Wikiquote is not a service for posting quotes from everyday individuals like you, me, and Mr. Markham. It is a compendium of quotes from notable people and works, verifiable through reliable sources, just as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of notable topics compiled from verifiable, reliable sources. It's not a personal judgment. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I consider Mr Markham to be no mere "everyday individual" but a great man, if sites such as this cannot be used to post quotes that have not come from "reliable sources" any chance of gaining recognition will be denied. is there a page where great quotes regardless of author notability can be posted surely it is what is said rather than who said it which is important. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.224.207.61 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You might try Googling "quotes" or "quotations" for such websites. I'd point out, however, than some well-known websites that contain quotes from many unnotable people (by WQ standards) seem to be trying, at least half-heartedly, to refocus on famous people, based on their Googled titles and summary lines (although this is rarely obvious from their home pages and sometimes hard to determine even if you hunt through their "about" and "FAQ" pages). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I suspect now that this article is actually a complete hoax, based on the fact that it was created by 195.224.207.61, whose only other contribution (other than unsigned VfD posts) has been to create Jack Pownall, a much more obvious hoax article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon searching Wikipedia I was happy to see that Geoff Markham was listed, however a little disappointed to find that he is up for deletion. Geoff Markham is co-author of 'Physics in Action', and a worthy candidate for Wikipedia. He is certainly a notable individual. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.224.207.61 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added the missing anonymous signatures and timestamps to show that the person making this comment, who apparently is trying to sound like they just discovered this article, is from the same IP that commented earlier and that created the article. (It's conceivable that they are different people using the same address, but past experience suggests it's more likely that this is a single newcomer to WQ who isn't aware that we can identify posters even when they don't sign.) As far as the Physics in Action claim, I found not a single Google hit using the combination of the book title and any of "geoff markham", "geoffrey markham", "markham geoff", and "markham geoffrey". Furthermore, neither Amazon.com (US) or Amazon.co.uk have such a title in their databases. I invite the editor to provide evidence that this book (or the person, for that matter) even exists. Alternatively, they are welcome to try to add Markham to Wikipedia, if he is indeed notable (but don't be surprised if the WP article gets axed even faster there). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Okay, this may be overkill, but the Wikipedia comment intrigued me. I noticed that wikipedia:User:195.224.207.61 has a history of nonsense edits on Wikipedia, many involving Bryanston School, which happens to be in Dorset, the supposed location of Markham. The Wikiquote Markham article was created four days after this IP's last edit on WP, for which they were threatened with imminent blocking. Add this all up, and we likely have a juvenile hoaxer who took his marbles and came here when WP wouldn't let them play. I'm sure Bryanston head Sarah Thomas would be so proud. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 05:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Eastman

edit

No quotes. ~ UDScott 22:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 00:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Fernandez

edit

Nonsense page. ~ UDScott 11:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No it's not.. But well, I agree that it is pretty irrelevant to the english quote page it should be moved to one of the "Filipino" or any eastern language page peachmango
  • Delete, as, the page is non-English. —LrdChaos 14:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Based on the attempt to use an irrelevant picture of Tom Cruise from Commons (which I've removed), I'm not sure I believe peachmango's claim. But it's almost certainly a vanity page, as the vast majority of people born in the 1990s haven't achieved notability yet. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: deleted. --Aphaia 23:53, 8 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]

George Will

edit

No quote. --Aphaia 14:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • VOTE CLOSED: Deleted, 4 deletes, no dissent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aphaia (talk • contribs) 23:53, 8 June 2005 (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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 09:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Georgie Henley

edit

This is a virtually empty quote article on a child actress (Lucy in The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005)) created by 169.244.143.115, an anonymous user who at first seemed merely not to understand what Wikiquote is about, but now seems to be going out of their way to cause problems by creating vapid articles and making silly requests. I would have suggested moving this article to the above title and converting it to a film-quote article, but there's nothing worth keeping currently in it. Henley's only film credit is this movie, making the film article much more logical. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 12:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gerhard Kocher

edit

Lots of quotes on this page and on many theme pages, but no obvious notability -- google search found nothing except wikiquote, wikiquote mirrors and other quote collections, into the 3rd or 4th page where I stopped looking. Can anyone find any notability? ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closes: 20 Aug 2005 20:00 (UTC)
  • Vote closes: 27 Aug 2005 20:00 (UTC)
  • Comment: This article does have some information, but it's apparently difficult for our primarily English-speaking community to verify easily. Since it seems promising nonetheless, I took some trouble to notify each of the 5 anonymous editors that we'd like some help on verifying this person's notability. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I did find one reference: the book Vorsicht: Medizin (Aphorismen zum Gesundheitswesen und zur Gesundheitspolitik) (English: Caution: Medicine (Aphorisms for Health Services and Public Health Policy) [my rough translation]) by Gerhard Kocher; publisher Ott Verlag (2000), ISBN 3722569303. I have no way of knowing whether this is a very popular or exceedingly obscure book. We again run into the question of how well-known should a person be in the English-speaking world to be considered notable for inclusion on en:Wikiquote. Hopefully our Swiss or German friends can help with more information. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The quotes are interesting, and obviously somebody said them. Put a header on it requesting more information. MScott 10:56 4 August 2005
    • Above vote was added by 67.154.144.146 at 17:54 (UTC). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The point is the notability of GK is in question. It's not a matter of having said them, it's a matter of being notable enough to be on WQ. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 17:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article already has a VFD notice at the top, which is an implicit call for more justification. In addition, as I said above, I've added a explicit request for more info on its talk page (the standard place to raise such issues) and on the talk pages of each of the IP users who added material. The Wikiquote community doesn't need to prove something is notable; the contributing editor has that onus. I only went through this considerable effort because I believe this article has a good chance to survive, but the best way to ensure that is to provide the requested evidence. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gerhard Kocher is totally unnotable. He himself added these citations, as he added his own citations to several articles of the German Wikipedia (where they have been deleted meanwhile). 212.254.x.y are his IPs, known from German Wikipedia. G.K. is absolutely unknown in Switzerland. --81.62.64.163 00:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm Swiss and I've got his Book "Vorsicht, Medizin". Not all of Gerhard Kochers aphorisms are brilliant, some of them are pretty lame - but there's no need to delete them. --Thomas 19:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is just getting more confusing. I went to de:Wikiquote and found that our article is a small subset of their article, apparently all from the book I mentioned above (which they'd noted on their article's talk page last year). I also found that there is no de:Wikipedia article, although, not being a sysop there, I don't know if it's been deleted before (as 81.62.64.163 may have implied). 81.62 provides no evidence that 212.254.* is actually Gerhard Kocher, and even if it was, it is allowed in Wikidom to edit your own articles if you're article-worthy (even though it's understandably frowned upon, for neutrality reasons). We could just assume that a lack of both a de:Wikipedia article and a published English translation of Vorsicht, Medizin makes this insufficiently notable for en:Wikiquote. I'd prefer to have more data, if possible. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: extended the vote by a week. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After 2 weeks, I'm unimpressed by the arguments either for or against this person. But Wikiquotes are a good place for unnotable people to get an audience, because they have much fewer eyeballs to check these kinds of issues. If Gerhard Kocher isn't notable enough even to get an article in de:Wikipedia, let alone en:Wikipedia, I think we might wait until the German folks settle this before allowing his fans to use en:Wikiquote to promote his material. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete convinced by Jeff's arguments. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: de.wp seems to have deleted GK's article. My German is non-existant, are there any German speakers who can see if they can find the VfD page for GK's article? Then we can use babelfish to translate it and see some more enlightening discussion. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 12:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • My German isn't great, either, but based on the page history of w:de:Gerhard Kocher shown in "View deleted pages", I think their GK experienced 2 Schnelllöschungen (speedy deletions) on 22 Oct 2004 (implying either an obvious SD (SL) candidate or an even older VfD (LK) that an anonymous editor tried to override twice in one day). I haven't been able to track it back any further yet, and now something seems to be wrong with wiki search. There is no "Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/Gerhard Kocher" (the German equivalent of WP's VFD archive format), but they may use a different system. I found no trace of GK in their deletion log, but I saw something that implied the standard log wasn't authoritative for activity earlier than 23 Dec 2004. Anyway, it looks like a long-dead issue there. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I concur with Jeff. Both this article and de equivalent, and de wikipedia articles were started by an anon, 212.254.97.144. And our article has no other substantial contributors. If an article will be submitted by same IP addresses, it would be a good speedy candidate. From other addresses, or another person, it will be better to consider its notability again. --Aphaia 20:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 17:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get ahht

edit

I don't see the need for a page for a single line. The only way I could see this surviving is if an article was created for the TV show (Warning: May Contain Nuts), and this page redirected to it. ~ UDScott 13:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (4 Deletes; 1 serious Keep, 1 Keep from apparent prankster; no notability evidence provided). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 13:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think the quote is noteworthy/memorable enough (certainly, to me, as someone who's never seen the show, I can't understand why someone would find it noteworthy/memorable) and certainly isn't enough to start a page for the whole show. —LrdChaos 13:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article, created by new WQ editor Gary Kirk, looks like a hoax article. Neither Wikipedia nor IMDb have anything to say about either the show or this supposed "British actor IMcG", nor is there any indication of such a person working on Titanic II. Google, besides pointing to a book titled Warning!: May Contain Nuts! by British author Barry Gibbons, lists a ton of uses of the phrase without any mention of a TV show. There is a Wikipedia image of a supposed DVD of this spoof TV show, but it was uploaded by User:GaryKirk, who seems likely to be the same editor as our new user. The only use of this image is in a user subpage, w:User:Garykirk/Jamie Tuffield, which is an apparent tribute to a school-age actor. This completely unsourced tribute reads like a hoax itself, although it is quite detailed. (Then again, so was "Concrete Hippo".) I hold out the possibility that this is not a hoax, especially since Gary Kirk seems to have contributed a lot to WP without being tagged as a hoaxer, but at the very least, this is likely an unnotable show, so even a proper article of quotes from it wouldn't meet Wikiquote notability standards. NOTE: The fate of redirects Get ahht! and Get Ahht! are also tied to this article.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have been privileged enough to produce the show which is the source of this quote, in fact, I wrote the aforementioned tribute to it. I must say that while it is a relatively unknown quote as of yet, it still has much value to the casual observer, and will undoubtedly be more well known in the near future. ~ Horatio Apple 13:19, 01 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikiquote's purpose is not to promote new creative works, but to quote from established ones whose notability provides us with a means to verify them. I can appreciate your desire to disseminate the work of an up-and-coming artist, but that's just not what we do here. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if only say, 300 people know of Get Ahht!, it is far more well known than some obscure, and frankly ridiculous articles such as Eddie's Stories ("How will we get out of here?" "The same way we will get out!" "Get Ahht!". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.112.229.153 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 3 May 2006 (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.
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: deleted. ~ Kalki 14:20, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Geza Pal & Geza Palatos

edit

"Geza Pal" or "Geza Palotas" does not seem to be a famous individual or work, so I am placing the vfd notice on these pages. As was explained in a note from Achilles to the IP which was used to create these, if someone wishes to create a User page, and place these comments on it, they are welcome to do so; we are not out to silence opinions and views of anyone, but to keep them in their proper channels: The comments posted do not seem to be by anyone as yet prominent enough to merit an article page here. ~ Kalki 12:00, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • DELETE I was new to Wikiquote and sort of playing around. I was not aware that quotes were for only famous people. I am not only not-famous but Nobody, and would like to stay nobody. So please Delete. --Geza Pal 17:42, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This kind of mistake does happen, and is understandable, and I am glad you have created a User listing. I am considering a few options on how the situations might be reduced. You can post the statements you had made on your user page if you wish. ~ Kalki 18:08, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
These pages have been deleted. ~ Kalki 14:20, 8 Dec 2004 (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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 02:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghrace Jeevasagayam

edit

I can't find any evidence that this person is real and/or notable; the only result from a Google search is the Wikiquote page. It's been tagged with {{no-intro}} since late November 2005 (around when it was created) and didn't receive any attention until earlier today when an anon (different IP than the creator) blanked the page. —LrdChaos 21:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: Deleted. --Aphaia 08:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death

edit

This has been moved to Wikisource. It could be developed into a page if someone wanted to add quotations from the actual speech, but it has not been touched for well over a year. Might as well get rid of until someone feels like adding anything. Zhaladshar 18:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • VOTE CLOSED: Deleted. (2 deletes, no dissent). --Aphaia 08:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The issue of deleting Wikiquote pages moved to Wikisource was most recently discussed in the VfD for A Tryst With Destiny (see the archived entry for details). Transwiki policy (as stated in MetaWiki) is to leave pages with links or redirects in place, but it's fuzzy and somewhat self-contradicting in places. Wikipedia and other projects often ignore the policy, especially given difficulties in the transwiki process and the resulting backlog. Based on the "Tryst" vote, the Wikiquote community was noticeably uninterested in resolving this issue at that time (5 weeks ago). If we demonstrate with this vote that we've changed our minds since then, I'll update the transwiki policy to reflect our practices. — Jeff Q (talk) 19:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't know that. I guess that means I won't be adding other pages which have been moved to Wikisource. At Wikisource we really don't transwiki anything, so I was not aware what the current policies involving transwiki were. Zhaladshar 19:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just so no one feels awkward about piping up on this issue again, I'll start this round of transwiki-related voting. See my archived "Tryst" explanations for details. (The policy discussion I mention there didn't really go anywhere.) — Jeff Q (talk) 19:36, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Transwiki policy on meta doens't work in many places. Most of transwikied article from English Wikipedia haven't been listed on w:Wikipedia:Transwiki log (there are only six or seven entries since this January). And since February 2005, all the redirect to the other site including other Wikimedia project has been disabled for preventing redirect using spamming, so it is useless to keep them as "redirect". And I think it is up to the community which received transwikied articles to keep the history of the transwikied article, not the community which sent it. For our own documentation, we could list it on our transwiki log (now it is isolated on this project).--Aphaia 20:11, 5 Jun 2005 (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.
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: deleted. — Jeffq 21:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Godfather, The (Parts II & III)

edit

This is (or was) a redirect to The Godfather: Part III. Each of the three Godfather films is now listed in List of films individually using their IMDb names, each of the existing articles has links to the other two titles, and there is nothing that links to this redirect. I think we can do away with this title, since no one is likely ever to type in this sequence of characters. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: Delete. — Aphaia 06:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Dowell

edit


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.
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: Delete. — Jeff Q (talk) 04:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gregor Brand

edit

This page was tagged for speedy deletion by IP 195.93.60.9 with the following comment:

unimportant person, has no entry in wikipedia, even not in the german wikipedia. his self-made entry was deleted in Germany, because of self-depicting.

A Google search of my own agrees with the "unimportant person" part; the top result is an Angelfire page, followed by this Wikiquote page in second. Other results appear to be profiles on websites that may or may not be the same person, but it doesn't much matter. —LrdChaos 19:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 13:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grimaldos Robin

edit

No intro, no wp, no quotes. Suspect vanity. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 09:07 (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.
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: Deleted. — Aphaia 08:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Grumpy Old Men

edit

Strange theme, not sure how useful it is. Perhaps a rename is better than deletion, but I have no good suggestions for a rename/merge. MosheZadka 20:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Vote closed: Deleted. (2 deletes, no dissent).Aphaia 08:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and move single quote to appropriate proverbs page. MosheZadka 20:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete after moving quote to Anonymous, unless someone can provide a credible source. Very popular quote, apparently, but who said it? I found a hint that it might have been said by someone on one of those execrable "survivor" pseudo-reality shows, but surely it's an old saying. I suspected "Grumpy Old Men" might refer to the 1993 Matthau/Lemmon film or the BBC2 television show, but didn't find this quote in their IMDb quote pages (which doesn't rule it out, though). — Jeff Q (talk) 20:40, 5 Jun 2005 (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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 05:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guide to layout

edit

Seems to be some commentary. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 22:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Günün sözü

edit

I'm not even sure what this is, or if it is notable. ~ UDScott 14:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent; no changes or further information provided). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 14:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This appears to be Turkish, perhaps "Quote of the day" (gün=day, söz=remark). The sole entry is apparently a Turkish version of an Archimedes quote, which even my best efforts couldn't adequately translate. However, it is cited in w:tr:Arşimet, Turkish Wikipedia's Archimedes article, which isn't a translation of the en:WP article and in fact may be a copyvio of [43]. (It's tempting to think the quote may be "Give me a fulcrum, and I shall move the world", especially because of "dayanak" (foundation) and "dünyayı" (dünya=earth), and the fact that most quote dictionaries have only this quote and "Eureka!", narrowing the possibilities.) But enough of "Fun with Turkish". In any case, this is en:Wikiquote, so the articles should only have non-English titles when dealing with people's names and creative works that are not only notable, but also not better known in the English-speaking world by an Anglicized name. This doesn't appear to meet any such qualification. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: deleted. — Aphaia 03:16, 23 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gus Arredondo

edit

No notability, blatant advertising, no actual pithy sayings. MosheZadka 10:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Vote closed: Deleted (2 deletes, no dissent). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aphaia (talk • contribs) 03:16, 23 June 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete MosheZadka 10:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Do a quick search on any of the major search engines and you will see how many times Gus Arredondo is mentioned. He is one of the fastest rising comics around and is held in high regard by his peers. Moshe thinks she can decide the content of this site for all of us. She has requested more page deletions than all of the other users combined. -- Cortypie 02:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Save this page !!! I agree with cortypie. Has Moshe been hiding with Osama Bin Laden? Gus Arredondo is going to be a big star. He has performed at some of the biggest comedy clubs in the country. No Notability? Moshe you need to get out of the house. -- Tonytimes 02:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I have moved the enthused comments (for some reason, without an actual vote) to the proper format, so the discussion will be clear. The only site I have found is Gus's own site, which I assume everyone agree is not evidence enough of notability in and of itself. If the enthused commenters would care to vote, and to add quotes to the article as well as external links pointing to those same peers avowing their high regards for Gus, I am sure we will all be happy to keep the article. MosheZadka 04:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I did as the users above suggested and found only 5 relevant, non-self-promoting hits in Google, which makes him only 1/20th as famous as me, a nobody. This person may be up-and-coming, but so are millions of would-be comics, actors, and other entertainment industry folks who never actually become notable. HOWEVER, the bigger problems are the blatant advertisting (unacceptable on Wikiquote) and, above all, the complete lack of relevant quotes. A stand-up comic's quote article ought to have quotes from his routines. (After all, that's what makes him notable.) I might reconsider if this article gets rid of the fawning prose, adds relevant quotes, and trims the self-promotion down to a matter-of-fact external link. — Jeff Q (talk) 05:04, 15 Jun 2005 (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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 19:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen from Tempe

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 11:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — LrdChaos 13:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hadier Khan , HAider and Haider Khan, Haider

edit

This inevitably "well-known" person, born in 1990, does not match up with other, older names, mostly for Haider Khan, on a Google search. Two of his four quotes ("Truth is stranger than fiction" and "Never complain, never explain") have a rather familiar ring. The "God is a comedian" quote is by Mencken. - InvisibleSun 12:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated this to include the second page as well. - InvisibleSun 13:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 02:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Richardson

edit

Not notable. Given the supposed birthdate in 1989, this person is probably not notable and a search did not turn up anyone (that was born in 1989 that is). ~ UDScott 12:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes from regular editors; 3 Keeps from editors who include at least 1 likely sockpuppet and whose only contributions thus far have been to create, edit, and support vanity articles against policy; no notability evidence provided). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course a search wouldn't find anything, it's obviously just some student, they aren't going to be notable in that way! Still, rather amusing quotes wouldn't you say? Most droll. Horatio Apple 18:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete this might not be by a world famous person, but the purpose of wikiquote is to share quotations - if the quotations are good, which these ones are, then why the hell would we want to delete them? Forrest Hump
  • Keep per Forrest Gump Hump, and it's comic genius! Gary Kirk 20:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' I concur, many quotations on here fail to enthrall, amuse or even interest me, these ones are really good! Horatio Apple 20:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 11:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harlan Tufford

edit

No evidence of notability, likely vanity. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jaxl 13:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hatori

edit

This page was created and then blanked by Animeluver (talk · contributions) in under a minute. I've reverted it to the non-blanked version, which doesn't include any quotes. Our speedy deletion policy doesn't permit the speedy deletion of pages where the author requests deletion by blanking, so I've brought it here. —LrdChaos 18:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 11:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Health, Hospital, Patient

edit

These articles were all created by 212.254.97.144, the person who added 20+ Gerhard Kocher quotes (see VFDA entry) to Favorites long ago and then farmed them out to other articles based on the topics assigned to them in Favorites. (81.62.64.163 and 83.76.75.245 [quite possibly the same person] claim, with some circumstantial evidence, that 212 is Kocher himself.) The sole contents of all three articles are Kocher quotes, so by voting to remove Kocher, we effectively decided to make all three empty articles. (I've left their contents intact for now for review.) "Health" and "Patient" had been tagged for merger with Medicine, but this should now be irrelevant. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 19:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Vrousia

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 19:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; 1 Keep from anon whose only contributions are to this article and VfD entry; no notability evidence provided). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless evidence of notability is provided. I couldn't find anything on this person (even using a variety of spellings for the name) online. I also did a search on Columbine-related books on a couple of sites (B&N, Amazon) and couldn't find anyone close to this name. Does this person even exist? ~ UDScott 19:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Concur with UDScott about evidence. Based on the writing and spelling, I wouldn't be surprised if the name itself is misspelled, making it impossible for anyone but the article creator to identify this person. If she is an author of a "500-paged book", surely this anonymous editor can provide the title and maybe even the ISBN? I'm not going to hold my breath, though. There are far too many quotes in this article that are more vanity than profundity. It might even be a hoax article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think that you are way too cruel. The author is just 17, and people deserve chances. The name of the book -which has been added- is called "Good wombs have born bad sons" and it has been published in Greece alone, so it is natural not to know it. And why would someone spend so much time to write about a person that doesn't even exist? And you gotta admit that some of the quotes are pretty good. ~ David Raymond 22:38, 30 March, 2006 (UTC)
    • The above text was added by 213.170.204.59 rather than the currently non-existent username "David Raymond" as originally claimed. This may have just been a misunderstanding about user registration and usernames. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The purpose of Wikiquote is not to promote new authors with no significant audience yet. It is to collect quotations from established, notable people and creative works. The only hits I find for the phrase "Good wombs have born bad sons" are the expected quotes from and citations of William Shakespeare's The Tempest and from Columbine shooter Eric Harris's academic planner, presumably quoting Shakespeare. We have found no one named "Helen Vrousia" thus far, and the information that she is a 17-year-old Greek neither helps us verify any supposed work, nor suggests she is likely to be considered notable by WikiMedia project standards. This is not a personal issue; it's just not the quote material that Wikiquote collects. You might try establishing an article for Ms. Vrousia at Greek Wikiquote, as she may be more notable in Greece. As for why someone would write about a person who doesn't exist, it's the same reason people write viruses and deface websites — it amuses them. We get hoax articles like all the time at Wikiquote. The only way we can ensure that we have accurate quotes from real people is to source and verify them, which is why we've asked for such information. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 05:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi proverbs

edit

No translation for single proverb. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: 1 delete, 1 redirect. — Aphaia 16:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

His Holiness the Dalai Lama

edit

Originally His Holiness the Dalai Lama Dalai Lama

Now both are (double) redirects to Tenzin Gyatso to Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama (and that is why I found them). --Aphaia 4 July 2005 09:15 (UTC)

Vote closed. Results:

  • Delete or Turn to disambiguation(s) because there were apparently his precedences ... I don't think it is a good idea we have such redirect with title, like "Pope", "British Queen" and so on.--Aphaia 4 July 2005 09:15 (UTC)
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 5 July 2005 06:49 (UTC)
  • Two different fates for two different redirects:
    • Delete "His Holiness the Dalai Lama". It does not following English Wikipedia title practices, as is currently demonstrated by its absence there. — Jeff Q (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect "Dalai Lama" to current Tenzin Gyatso article, whichever that is. (I don't agree with the current suffix, as it seems to violate the WP MoS principle of avoiding honorifics and positions in article titles unless needed for disambiguation, but WP is currently ignoring it for Tenzin Gyatso, so I won't raise a fuss right now.) Unless and until we have quotes from another incarnation of the Dalai Lama, we don't really need "Dalai Lama" to be a disambiguation article. — Jeff Q (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 08:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo romano

edit

Not notable. A search of Google turns up just over a hundred hits (but only 22 'not similar' ones), mostly photo uploads with some blog posts thrown in. —LrdChaos 02:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jaxl 21:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hrishikesh Gaitonde

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 20:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Deleted articles I-K

edit
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: delete. — Jaxl 13:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Weed: One Girl's Story of the Holocaust

edit

Strictly a vanity entry. The article was most likely written by the author of the self-published book just as her wikipedia article was. My vote would be Delete Beaner1 21:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 05:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know but still

edit

Another page for a single quote. I haven't the slightest clue what this quote is from, so I wouldn't know where to merge it to, even if I thought it was worth having around (which I don't). —LrdChaos 17:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 15:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian McDiarmid

edit

No quotes. ~ UDScott 18:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 17:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incognito

edit

This page has nonsense quotes, and the film description provided isn't even for a film of this title, but instead describes The Devil's Advocate. ~ UDScott 12:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: Deleted. --Aphaia 23:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Inka Vendari

edit

No notability, no google search, links to a non-existant wikipedia article, single quote not very interesting.

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.
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: Delete. — LrdChaos 17:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's A Big Big World

edit

If you look past the lack of formatting, the only quote is not memorable or noteworthy. Considering that the page is for a children's TV show, I think it's unlikely to move beyond that stage; even if someone wanted to add more to it, they could recreate the page (which might be better for it). —LrdChaos 14:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 14:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its Tough

edit

Non-notable person (only one search result). I also have no idea how it relates to the title, so if the page is kept, it should be moved to a more appropriate title. —LrdChaos 13:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 01:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jacinto Caetano

edit

Another article with 1 quote, no intro, and no apparent Google presence. This one was created by ILVI, who also created Ségur, as well as deleted vanity articles "Jacinto Javier Bowks de la Rosa" and "James Norman Bowks Sr." (for himself and an apparent relative). This one looks to be a police officer of ILVI's acquaintance. However, ILVI is a long-time Wikiquotian; although he's an infrequent contributor, he has started many solid Wikiquote articles and contributed to others. I think he's just not clear on the notability requirement, so, as presumptuous as it feels for a "younger" Wikiquotian to advise an "older" one, I've left him a note. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeff Q (talk) 23:54, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jacinto Javier Bowks de la Rosa

edit
Was voted on in conjunction with James Norman Bowks Sr. (second entry).

Both created by User:ILVI, the first page is himself, the second presumably a relative. Neither has any notability outside of Wikiquotes and its mirrors. Rmhermen 00:09, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: The first is the editor himself according to his userpage on Wiktionary, so it should be on his own page (not on normal namespace), the latter can't be found elsewhere than this page, and almost meaningless, so should be deleted. --Aphaia 17:20, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. — Jeff Q (talk) 05:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Tagged for deletion, but technical problems with the software currently prevent its deletion. — Jeff Q (talk) 23:54, 2 Apr 2005 (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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 07:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Pownall

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 16:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: Deleted due to copyvio. --Aphaia 14:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques D'Amboise

edit

Encyclopedic stub. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 17:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: deleted. ~ Kalki

James beaumont

edit

There is an actor at IMDb named James Beaumont, but I have not found any mention of any noted scientist or philosopher by such a name, and these quotations have the appearance of being merely personal anecdotes that might belong on someone's User page, not in a Wikiquote article. Perhaps if noteworthy quotations of the actor can be found it can be revised, but otherwise, I think it should simply be deleted. ~ Achilles 19:38, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This was deleted. ~ Kalki
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.
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: Deleted. — Jeffq 08:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Chin

edit
  • Probable vanity page. Only contribution from anynmous user and provided link goes to similar but different quote. Rmhermen 23:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: Deleted (4 Deletes, 1 implicit Delete; 1 Keep). — Jeff Q (talk) 08:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only place this shows up in Google (besides on a website with a copy of our page, including the VfD notice) is on the web board cited in the Wikiquote entry. The ability to post something witty on a web board does not make one notable. — Jeff Q (talk) 11:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Strongly suspecting a vanity page.--Aphaia 17:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. James Chin is an important part of many lives. He inspires people to reach out and be cool and funny. If it were not for James Chin, I would have commited suicide long ago. If you delete him, what's to say I won't contemplate it again? Or at least consider doing it over a Macintosh App-- aha, see! I could have died if not for his wisdom! -Steelix 13:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • User has no edits except this vote. Rmhermen 15:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I find this presumably lighthearted attempt at emotional blackmail in incredibly poor taste. — Jeff Q (talk) 18:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I believe this is another case of a Beloved Forum Personality. According to his user profile, he has 2,700+ posts to the referenced forum, with the majority in the Banter & Brawl section. Perhaps a Colorful Characters page, where a few sayings from the village jesters of the world could be preserved?--Eustace Tilley 03:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't see any notability to this person. MosheZadka 08:20, 21 Apr 2005 (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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 06:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Coates

edit

No intro, no wp article. Google search brought me to a PHP programmer's personal page. The single quote is unsourced, and is a variant of a fairly popular theme. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: Delete. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Mallard

edit

No Wikipedia page, no relevant Google results. This is almost certainly a hoax page. —LrdChaos 19:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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.
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: delete. — Jeff Q (talk) 23:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

James Norman Bowks Sr.

edit
Was voted on in conjunction with Jacinto Javier Bowks de la Rosa (first entry).

Both created by User:ILVI, the first page is himself, the second presumably a relative. Neither has any notability outside of Wikiquotes and its mirrors. Rmhermen 00:09, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: The first is the editor himself according to his userpage on Wiktionary, so it should be on his own page (not on normal namespace), the latter can't be found elsewhere than this page, and almost meaningless, so should be deleted. --Aphaia 17:20, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. — Jeff Q (talk) 05:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. — Jeff Q (talk) 23:55, 2 Apr 2005 (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.
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: Transwiki to English Wikipedia. --Aphaia 02:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Oppenheim

edit

Encyclopedic stub, no quotes, no obvious notability (wikipedia link is to an empty article). ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 30 June 2005 15:25 (UTC)

Now this vote was moved to the WQ:VFDA. --Aphaia 16:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 05:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Randall

edit

Non notable, plagiarised quotes, almost certainly vanity ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 21:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 22:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Tarmy

edit

None-notable student. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 20:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed: Result: delete (controversial: 3 delete, 3 keep, but keeps were mostly by new users [2 of which have no edits outside James Tarmy and VfD], and no notability was established, the users refused to discuss notability policy in general and asserted importance. I urge all those who feel that this closure is wrong to raise the issue on the village pump. I will also wait before I execute the discussion -- I intend to contact all keep voters and ask them to copy any and all quotes they find useful to their page or a subpage thereof, so they will not have to start from scratch should notability be established, as an act of good faith) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 22:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 20:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least as notable as Emile Cioran. In the ancient world philosophers did not publish but were preserved in writing by their disciples. Mgasner 22:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Tarmy is a student, and students are almost never notable. A Google check of 1 confirmed hit (a website devoted to the U of C Class of 2007) demonstrates that he's even less known than a university student of the same name who rows competitively. This is an obvious non-notability case. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Tarmy is specifically described on the page as a nihilist philosopher. At this stage in his academic work, his nihilism tends towards that described in Nietzsche's later work. Nietzsche characterizes his brand of nihilism as a philosophy regarding the world and human existence as empty of meaning, purpose, and value. Tarmy does not formally publishing any of his works, though they are in informal circulation. Tarmy's philosophy revolves around filling a life left devoid of meaning with the one thing that remains to satisfy the human heart: material wealth. Tarmy approaches the postmodern concept of nihilism (a philosophy less defeatist than that of Nietzsche) from this direction. Material wealth is the only thing left for humans to "fill the void" (Tarmy, 06/25/04), the only thing that can provide any semblance of happiness or fulfillment in human existence in a world where such a individualistic capitalist slave-state exists. As Tarmy's philosophy moves from Nietzsche's concept of nihilism (with defeatism a distinct characteristic) towards a more postmodern nihilistic stance, his attitude towards formal publication may change, but it is impossible to say for sure. User:Mdmalinowski 21:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Mdmalinowski is probably Matthew David Malinowski, who is, like James Tarmy, a University of Chicago student. [44] Mgasner, assuming they're not a sockpuppet of Mdmalinowski, may be Max Gasner, apparently yet another U of Chicago student. [45] We have a straightforward policy on students that follows Wikipedia guidelines as well. No amount of fellow classmate voting makes a student notable, and shouldn't override basic Wikiquote policy. Nor should any amount of flowery prose, arrogant enough to discuss a mere college student on the same level as world-famous, time-honored philosophers, replace the basic requirement for notability. Many college students think they're the next Socrates or Einstein; we only cite quotations from people who prove their notability. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm new here - are we supposed to try to defend our existence as autonomous human beings? Or is the accusation of "sockpuppet" sort of to be taken as one possibility which cannot, once raised, be discounted? Mgasner 02:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC) I mean, why not just ask us who we are? Why go on Google adventures? Who's on trial? Mgasner 03:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are good questions. Normally, one need not identify oneself, as we value privacy. However, when people refuse to abide by Wikiquote policies, it is not unusual for others to try to ferret out reasons why they seem determined to flout them. (This is different from arguing changes on appropriate policy talk pages, which then are available for the community to review and debate.) Wikiquote accepts personal quotes (and quotes from friends, family, and other non-notables that a user finds quotable) on user pages, but maintains a need for notability for main namespace articles. As for sockpuppets, they are sufficiently damaging to the community consensus process that we make some effort to identify possible ones through editing pattterns. MosheZadka listed why he suspected this as a possibility, and my further research suggested this may not be the situation. Neither case is proven. But regardless, policy requires notability, and students are considered unnotable unless significant evidence exists to show otherwise. (I won't even try to count the number of high school and college students who have assumed they deserved quote articles alongside Shakespeare et al. just because they are able to create the page.) The Tarmy article and its two supporters' arguments so far effectively make the case that we won't find such evidence. This does not make Tarmy uninteresting or unquotable, just not eligible for a Wikiquote article. Other quote sites have different inclusion and exclusion guidelines; we ask that editors respect ours. I suggest Mdmalinowski and Mgasner copy whatever Tarmy quotes they like to their own user pages. As far as asking who people are, I think we don't usually bother because in most cases, we don't expect straightforward answers from people who are deliberately trying to violate policy. But we may have been too hasty here. Users are welcome to say as much or as little about themselves as they want to on their user pages. As this point, Mdmalinowski has no user page, Mgasner has a brief statement without identifying information, and neither has confirmed or denied any of the above research. I hate to sound so repetitious, but even if these users were Steven Spielberg and J.D. Salinger and made passionate arguments above the worthiness of Tarmy, what matters is verifiable sources for notability, not personal acclamation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's worth pointing out that the criteria we have cited in favor of Tarmy's notability specifically exclude the possibility of there being verifiable sources of the kind you require. It is a point of philosophical significance that certain thinkers refuse to publish. I suppose however that "policy" must prevail (it certainly will once a decent period has elapsed, as you have fiat power and we do not) and look forward to everyone's return to the important work of amassing tidbits from Zorro and Gilligan's Island so that they "will exist forever as a summary of the collective insights of society, communal knowledge passed on from one generation to the next." Mgasner 05:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am pretty much sick of this discussion, and won't return to it again. I will note, however, that as you have pointed out, "disciples" often collect wisdom of philosophers and publish it. If you and your friends decide to collect Tarmy's wisdom, such as it is, and publish it via a non-vanity press, I'm certain that everyone here will be more than happy to have a page with quotations from that book. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikiquote sysops have no "fiat" power; we must follow the policies that the community has developed, and we must use the same mechanisms any other editor is obliged to use if we wish to change rules. Neither MosheZadka nor I created Wikiquote, nor did we develop these notability requirements. (Check out the Wikipedia article on Wikiquote if you're interested; it specifically mentions "prominent" quotees, and James Tarmy is prominent only in the minds of a rabid few.) I have addressed why Wikiquote does not accept unpublished quotees; Mgasner refuses to accept this policy or attempt to change it by bringing it up in the Village pump or other appropriate venue. Mgasner is implicitly arguing that Tamry is more valuable than movies or TV shows. Whatever one might think of specific examples in any genre, there is no objective way to evaluate quoteworthiness; Mediawiki projects like Wikiquote have centered on sourceable published material collected by editors and reviewed by the community. By this guideline, Gilligan's Island has had enormously more cultural impact than Tamry, no doubt even at the University of Chicago. (That may very well change in years to come; if so, Tamry fans are welcome to create a new article with his works based on whatever sourceable references are used by Wikiquote at that future time.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no notability. Some projects set vote eligibility for VfD or VfA - like "50 edits on Main namespace". I assume it is the time for us to consider if we also need such a rule, avoiding fraud with sock- and meatpuppets . --Aphaia 21:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Of course he's not published; he's only 20 years old! I must confess I only came across this entry while browsing Mr. Tarmy's Facebook page, but after a quick look through it I can tell that he should stay on Wikiquote. Why? Because all of his quotations are quite deep for a college student, and that is a good sign. Plus, they're at once funny and interesting to read. --sstigler 22:56, 6 November 2005 (PST)
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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 21:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Wylie

edit

Page with no quotes for a college student with no claims to notability provided. Wikipedia link is to a nonexistent page. InvisibleSun 03:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jaxl 19:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Kaim

edit
  • Vote closed. Result: delete (4 Deletes; no dissent). -- Robert 19:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the only reference I can find to someone of this name is a 15-year old high school student, which certainly does not seem to be notable enough for inclusion here. ~ UDScott 13:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided. No Wikipedia article. If this is indeed the high schooler who worked on a Colchester Theater Company website and who was quoted in a Burlington Free Press article dated today [46] about a school reopening (as seems likely given the physical location of the anonymous editor's IP address), it's slightly unusual in that this person was actually mentioned in a newspaper. By itself, however, this doesn't make a person notable. (Unnotable I can make the same claim to semi-fame from my college years.) If we decide to delete, we should also remove Kaim's quotes from Imagination, Time, and Writing, as well as speedy-delete the redirect Jan P. Kaim (which was originally a duplication of Jan Kaim). I must say, I'd like to have this editor working toward non-vanity ends, as he's admirably thorough. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless someone can show notability. —LrdChaos 19:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn. Note: article was blanked by an anon, probably the creator himself. jni 08:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: delete. — Jeff Q (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jarrod Hill

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 15:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 19:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Beattie

edit
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.
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: deleted. — Aphaia 06:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Dunn

edit


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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 7 July 2005 19:34 (UTC)

Jean Seberg

edit

Somewhere between encyclopedic and unverified conspiracy theory. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 19:34 (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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 16:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Detweiler

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 20:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 00:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Rupert

edit

As I mentioned in the David Kretch VfD entry, this is another apparent unnotable from that article's creator. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 16:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Rodgers

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 19:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 21:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeyakumar Nadarajah

edit

Unsourced, single-quote article from unidentified person with no WP article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: deleted. — Aphaia 20:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Oblak

edit

No quotes, no wp article, google hits show nothing special. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: Delete. — Jeff Q (talk) 09:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Shapiro

edit

1. Article at best is advertising or a Vanity page. See also Advertisments

2. Article does not meet this Wikiquote Notable standard: We limit ourselves to quotations which are notable. A quotation can be notable either because it has achieved fame by itself, but more usually because it was said by someone notable, or appeared in a notable work. It does not have potential to meet this standard and become a proper Wikiquote page.

3. Most likely it was created in support of an article currently up for deletion in Wikipedia due to lack of notability of subject.Dashiell 02:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that the main "article", Jim Shapiro has been speedy deleted.Jawesq 18:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually WP:BIO does support speedy deletion.Jawesq 20:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Jim Shapiro must not use the Internet to get business, as this ill-sourced attack page has been around for nearly two years. Our article was created only 1 day after the WP article was created, and the second WP edit was made 3 minutes later to add the WQ box link, strongly suggesting that both article creators are the same person. The sole external link provided in the WQ article appears to be a squirrely personal website with no provenance. (I've listed some details about it in the AfD for the WP article.) All in all, this looks like a set of bad-faith editing by someone with an axe to grind. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm the administrator who deleted the Jim Shapiro article from English Wikipedia. I agree that it all looks like a hatchet job. --Tony Sidaway 18:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Following WP's lead, I've blanked this article as a likely attack page, but following our own practices, I've added a convenient link for review. We could conceivably speedy-delete this, but I'm a bit troubled by the failure to look into an apparently legitimate source for information on this person, a New York Lawyer magazine article titled "Lawyer Known for Ads Suspended" (3 May 2004). However, given the lack of VfD/AfD participation from the original editor, the tide of opinion, and the restricted nature of the source, I suspect we'll end up deleting this article anyway. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good call. It appears that "New York Lawyer" is an attorney's site of some sort ....if you were to look at my state's similar type of website, I daresay you would find attorneys in the Southeast who have been sanctioned, as well. Not sure that changes the nature of the attack, since even the last 'version' was poorly sourced. The fact is that you would not find reputable national sources discussing this individual, because he simply isn't that well known. Therefore, the only possible purpose in creating a Wiki article is to make him well known, and for being an unsavoury lawyer. Is this an encyclopedia or a gossip rag? I do take this personally, even though I do not know this individual. I am sick to death of finding articles like this on Wikipedia, that are poorly sourced lawyer-bashing. This, however, is the most clear cut abuse of Wikipedia that I have seen, that falls squarly in WP:BIO of what NOT to do. Jawesq 20:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The registration process for NYLawyer.com, which looks much like many print publications' website registrations, made me think this was a magazine. I stand corrected by its own words: "New York Lawyer is an online career guide for young lawyers. Backed by the resources and reputation of the 113-year-old New York Law Journal…". I decided to try to resolve this source question to see if there's any reason not to SD this article like WP, but found that its registration process seems to be using an invalid security certificate. My attempts to find a reference to "New York Lawyer" or "nylawyer.com" on the NYLJ website resulted in a number of matches whose excerpts did not include the search term, and whose full content would only be revealed by starting a $300 subscription to NYLJ. As a result, I've changed my mind (see above) — I think there's no reason not to SD this article like WP did. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes! There are too many TLAs (two and three letter acronyms)! I have to have Wiki TLA training.  ;-) I just wish the lawyer bashing in WIkipedia would stop. Someone said I was treating this as a personal 'crusade'. WEll, I am an attorney, and I really have a problem with gratuitous lawyer insults. And this is all that article was about.Jawesq 21:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, keep deleted. Non-notable person, nothing notable said by or about him. BD2412 T 03:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but I'm not sure that any of our formal policies and/or guidelines would permit speedy deletion of this page at present. —LrdChaos 15:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have an as-yet-unwritten practice, established shortly after an infamous Wikipedia scandal and following their lead (as we often do), of speedy-deleting attack pages against unnotables. (Yet another reason we've got to update our policies.) I'm wavering on using it, though, because (A) blanking the page renders the attack moot, and (B) we now have a deletion review for the WP article. The latter seems exceedingly unlikely to change anything, but one can hardly be blamed for pausing while such a flurry of activity resolves itself. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for explaining this, Jeff. I wondered what clarification you were referring to in your discussion. Iit does seem that there should be SD for attack pages on unnotables, and this should be better clarified in Wikipedia as well.Jawesq 16:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, Articles, case 6 does cover this, and includes a link to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more information. Our draft policy includes a similar "Attack page" clause, but it is still awaiting final review, discussion, and approval. As far as my "clarification" goes, I'm not sure what you're referring to. (You don't make clear which discussion you're talking about — this one, the WP AfD, or the WP deletion review.) If you mean italicizing of my VfD entry as you cited it in the WP review (and incidental removal of the unmatched "blockquote" end tag), I did that to make it visually clearer that I did not post that edit, so that my subsequent vote didn't look like a second attempt to weigh in on the subject. (Yes, you did say before and after the text that it was copied by you, but visual formatting cues can be very useful to others when reading such a voluminous text as that review entry. Being a lawyer, I suspect you're more adept than most (myself included!) at careful reading of incredibly long texts. ☺ For many editors, such a detailed discussion tends to discourage participation by folks not already involved in the discussion. (I suspect this is a factor in the unusual absence thus far of most of the regular VfD participants in this one. But I must keep my reputation as Wikiquote's most verbose sysop. ☺) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have had no problems with any of your edits. I didn't mean clarification of your edit. I meant a clarification of what was being proposed for the SD...I found it very interesting that you mentioned this. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. Maybe I just need to leave all of this alone, since I seem to be stumbling.  :-( Jawesq 20:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. - InvisibleSun 16:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suggest now leaving the quotes, since the original deleted article has now been recreated using "James" instead of "Jim" Shapiro, before the deletion review was even completed. An AFD or speedy delete is apparently meaningless, and not worth the time. The new "james" Shapiro article in WP is a broader attack on lawyers, and is not specifically an attack on Shapiro, who is used primarily as a bad example. I suggest that the authors of the Wikiquote and Wikipedia article on Shapiro get the names of their article/quotes (or whatever recreation of those) to link up properly. I will not participate further, since I am leaving WIkipedia altogether. WIkipedia (I can't speak for here) is probably the worst example of juvenile politics and tabloid 'journalism' I have ever seen. I am only surprised there have not been more lawsuits against this group. The environment is not one in which I have any desire to participate. Jawesq 16:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above discussion. ~ UDScott 18:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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.
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: Deleted. --Aphaia 18:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Jhonson

edit
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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 05:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Williams

edit

No intro, quote not found anywhere except wq and mirrors, there are lots of people named Jimmy Williams that google points to (at least two sportsmen). ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 02:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 23:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joakim noah

edit

While there is a notable person with this name (an NBA player), but this page doesn't appear to relate to him. There's no intro to explain it, but the nature of the quotes appear to be unrelated to the NBA player. The same anon user (68.101.66.175) has also created two other pages which I've tagged for speedy deletion. —LrdChaos 03:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — LrdChaos 21:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Regan

edit

Non-notable "upcoming influential thinker for the 21st century" with no relevent Google results on the first page and no Wikipedia page. —LrdChaos 18:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (six votes to delete, one vote to keep (by anon who created article and whose only edits have been related to it, including blanking this VFD discussion)). —LrdChaos 21:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. - Personal Site isn't spam. Author does rank on first page of Google for his name. I added it as an external link. (EzineArticles.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.92.169.157 (talk • contribs) 2006-06-20 20:21:48 (UTC)
  • Delete - The first four Google results return four different people. None of these guys are notable. Koweja 23:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity article. My name in Google brings me up for every one of the first 20 hits. This does not make me notable; it just means I've had my name mentioned in more Google-collected webpages than others with the same name. Google is a tool to discover notability through Web references, not evidence of notability itself. It pops up here so often because the reverse is usually meaningful — no Google presence is near-conclusive evidence of an un-notable. When there are Google hits, they must be examined, and the only potentially notable "Joe Regan" I noticed was a 19th-century baseball player. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 121a0012 01:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: deleted. — Jeffq 17:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Roskowski

edit

No wp article, no intro, google points to WQ as first hit, and to an engineering student. Likely vanity. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 7 July 2005 12:29 (UTC)

Johannes Kayßer

edit

Only German quotes, no wp article. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 12:29 (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.
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: Deleted. — Jeffq 20:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

John Dunford

edit

More unexplained stuff from the author of Bert Macleod (VfD above). jni 13:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: Deleted (4 Deletes; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 20:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. jni 13:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete MosheZadka 17:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Perhaps it could have been speedy-deleted by citing the above reason. Sams 20:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Somebody should post a "WQ is not a personal website" notice to this IP address. (I was going to, but I'm struggling with a civility deficiency at the moment, and every WQ user (except spammers) deserves a polite first contact.) — Jeff Q (talk) 04:52, 2 Jun 2005 (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.
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: deleted. — Aphaia 20:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Foley

edit

No intro, no wp article, google points to a biologist, a journalist, a manager and a bishop, none of them are connected with these quotes. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: deleted. — MosheZadka 01:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John M. Anglin

edit

No intro, no wp article, google points to wq and mirrorsm, and lists someone of that name as a secretary in some company ("Farmer Brothers Co. Torrance"), apparently having gotten a scholarship too. None of this makes this person notable, I believe. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 19:36, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — LrdChaos 18:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Mavridis

edit

Non-notable. No Wikipedia page, and from the results on Google, he appears to be just another lawyer. —LrdChaos 16:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 23:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan davies

edit

This appears to be a vanity page; there's no assertion of notability, and the quotes themselves don't appear to have any real value except a few people who might know the individual. —LrdChaos 18:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (4 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. —LrdChaos 18:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless person identified properly, evidence provided of notability, and major cleanup done, including sourcing the quotes. There is a WP article on Welsh rugby player Jonathan Davies, but this article doesn't make clear if this is who is meant. In fact, this article doesn't make anything clear. It looks like an attempt to mock someone, whether it be the rugby player or just some ordinary person who is being insulted. If someone identifies this very quickly as WP's Davies, we should clean it up ASAP, especially removing the POV statements and unsourced "interpretations". If not, we might blank it as an attempt to demean an unnotable individual. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, concur with above. ~ UDScott 20:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : Personal quotes on the User's page are fine... not in the articles; Wikiquote clearly adheres to the guidelines for Wikipedia on the matter of vanity pages. ~ Harry Tuttle 07:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The user at the same IP as the one that created the article recently added this: "Jonathan Davies is a student at Gleneagle Secondary school. Jon was born on September 6 1991." I believe this clears up the subject of the article. —LrdChaos 16:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 21:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Prendergast

edit

Unsourced, single-quote article from unidentified person with no WP article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 11:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Canter

edit

No intro, google results do not point to someone obvious, and the quote seems taken from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 08:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed: Result: delete (2 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 08:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless evidence provided of originality. Jon Canter and Douglas Adams were both writers of the Cambridge Footlights Revue in 1974, in which Canter acted as well.[47] It seems likely that Adams reused this line, perhaps only spoken by Canter in a role, in Hitchhiker's Guide four years later. However, without evidence that Canter actually wrote it, one must strongly suspect that it originated with Adams. Who is claiming Canter wrote it? I found nothing other than the usual-suspect websites making undocumented assertions, and a reference to an older version of the Wikiquote page. (I couldn't easily find which version, because its anon editors almost never use the edit summary like they're supposed to.) Anyone can claim originality; let's see the proof. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: Deleted.. — Aphaia 04:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Schaffer

edit

No quotes. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 23:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: deleted. — Aphaia 08:00, 20 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Blake

edit

No notability, no pithy quotes. A somewhat humourous epitaph which could have been in epitaph list, possibly. MosheZadka 03:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Vote closed: Deleted. (4 deletes, no dissent). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aphaia (talk • contribs) 08:00, 20 June 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete MosheZadka 03:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. An anonymous user added this Halloween joke tombstone inscription to Epitaphs on 10 May, found it deleted, then readded it and created this article from its red-linked name on 5 June. Whether or not the epitaph is legitimate, the person article surely isn't. — Jeff Q (talk) 05:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete No sign of notability - epitaph could go into epitaph list as "anonymous", if someone prefers. --Aphaia 16:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article about an average man; explains its own non-notability. jni 06:30, 9 Jun 2005 (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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 7 July 2005 19:02 (UTC)

Jones Soda Co.

edit

Seems to be commercial promotion,with no added value to wq. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 19:02 (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.
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: delete. — LrdChaos 23:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jose sousa

edit

Notability not demonstrated. - InvisibleSun 19:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closed. Result: delete (five explicit votes to delete, one implicit vote to delete, no dissent). —LrdChaos 23:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 20:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Alexander Scruggs

edit

Non-notable 20-year-old; Google turns up less than 200 hits between "Joshua Alexander Scruggs", "Joshua Scruggs" and "J.A. Scruggs," and none seem to be this person. —LrdChaos 14:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: deleted. ~ Kalki 19:09, 11 March 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JRM

edit

Appears to be a vanity page. (Neat quote, though.) — Jeff Q 01:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Thanks. And I can assure you I didn't do it :-) This sort of stuff is supposed to go at Meta:IRC channel quotes. JRM 20:13, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Deleted ~ Kalki
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.
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: deleted.. — Aphaia 20:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Juergen Heine

edit

No wp article, the CEO of a (probably) one-man company without any google-juice, only link I can find written by him is a request in german, from Martin's response probably for a half-baked idea to rewrite the debmirror software. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 03:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Title and discussion blanked by Essjay at 04:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC), per m:OTRS request (see talk page). The content should not be restored, per Wikimedia Foundation request. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 00:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Parkinson

edit

Non-notable vanity page. Google only turns up 14 hits on the name, and the username of the page's creator is "Kparkinson". I've posted {{vanity-warn}} on their talk page. —LrdChaos 17:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — LrdChaos 15:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaosu Rah

edit

Search yields bulletin board postings without notability. - InvisibleSun 02:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closed. Result: delete (eight votes to delete, no dissent). —LrdChaos 15:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 06:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Karl herrick

edit

Misspelled name, no wikipedia article, google links to a personal site, no intro, no source for quotes. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 02:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 23:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn Champlin

edit

Notability not demonstrated. - InvisibleSun 02:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closed. Result: delete (4 Deletes, 1 implicit delete; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 16:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Suter

edit

No quote. Note: those sentences resemble strongly with this description. --Aphaia 21:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 02:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Heins

edit

Non-notable. In the nearly two months since the page was created, there haven't been any further edits to provide an intro; a search on the name doesn't turn up anyone particularly notable. —LrdChaos 15:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 15:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin McCarron

edit

Notability not demonstrated. - InvisibleSun 11:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 00:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Miller

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 19:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 09:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kim

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 13:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; 1 struck vote from no signature; no other dissent). ~ Jeffq 09:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. ~ UDScott 13:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would like to say Kim Stolz I think or Slotz is a quoty girl.
  • Delete. I'd ordinarily suggest the potential for keeping based on evidence of notability, but looking at the current article, I hold little hope for such. First, this person surely isn't famous enough to go by a single incredibly common name. Second, she was apparently eliminated in one of the zillions of hardly-notable shows which are nothing more than Warholesque attempts to manufacture celebrities out of ordinary people. Very few winners remain notable beyond their "15 minutes" of fame. Third, we don't have any information on when this supposed surnameless contestant was on the program, so it's rather problematic using a source like TV.com's article to verify this information. Fourth, even if all these obstacles are overcome, the quotes listed are not only misspelled, but they're extremely common statements. We might as well quote someone for saying "Hi". If she is notable, a quote like "I'm bisexual" is more useful as a reference for a Wikipedia bio. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I belatedly thought to check WP's article on America's Next Top Model to see if I could deduce who this person is. It seems likely this "Kim" is Kim Stolz from Cycle 5. The article says nothing about when this cycle aired, but TV.com says this Kim was eliminated on the 23 November 2005 show, "The Girl Who Retaliates" (ep #58 or 5.10). (This show is so unoriginal, it even borrows its title scheme, which resembles Friends' "The One With…" titles.) Even if I've solved the identity and sourceability problems, the rest remain. I'd suggest, as an alternative to deletion, that this article be turned into a companion quote article for ANTM itself, but I still favor deletion unless and until someone actually does the work to make this happen (especially finding useful quotes, instead of random things these pseudocelebrities say). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jeff Kim talked and that quoted her in ANTM KIM should get credit like anyone else huh!
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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 20:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kishor

edit

Wp article was deleted due to non-notability. I believe we should follow. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 19:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantin Mechler

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 22:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 17:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kristy Swanson

edit

This page isn't about a person; it's the words "I like cheese and" appended to a complete copy of the Wikipedia page for The Lord of the Rings, including the header/side/footer areas, not just the content. —LrdChaos 18:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Deleted articles L-P

edit
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: Delete. — UDScott 14:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lachlan

edit
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.
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: Deleted. — Jeffq 14:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Laputian proverbs

edit

Includes only 1 unreferenced quote in an unknown and unexplained language, without "translation". Possibly a reference to the Laputians of Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift, but I couldn't find it in the relevant text (Part III, Chapters I-IV). — Jeff Q (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: Delete. — UDScott 19:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leeroy Jenkins

edit

Not notable, and no quotes. ~ UDScott 19:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 03:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lehi (group)

edit
  • Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes; no dissent; no activity to address issues). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 12:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Where to begin with this? First, it's clearly not a Wikiquote article, so it should be deleted unless specific quotes are cited, which would still require a massive reduction of the text and probably a reduction of the introductory prose. Second, it appears to include an entire work, which is never acceptable on Wikiquote (or Wikipedia, for that matter). If it's covered by copyright (which the editor uses some questionable arguments to claim it isn't — see my talk page comments), it should be summarily deleted; if not, it belongs on Wikisource, not here. Third, it seems awfully POV, but that could just be the nature of the document it has incorporated. Fourth, I'm quite troubled by the intimate involvement of the editor with the subject. It is increasingly bad form among WikiMedia projects to write articles about subjects that one has direct involvement in, and commissioning a full translation of a document seems like significant involvement. At the very least, an editor shouldn't be posting their user ID in an article. If Zero0000 has a legitimate claim to offering the document for public domain, they should be providing a real-world name for proper sourcing. (Not that I'm suggesting this; I think the whole situation reeks of agenda and should be dealt with on a higher level.) Conclusion: The only way I currently see to salvage this article is to reduce it to a set of pithy quotes from the document (which is supposed to be what Wikiquote delivers), with appropriate sourcing. I'm not sure what to do about the Wikiquote editor commissioned-translation aspect of the source. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Jeffq. —LrdChaos 19:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: Deleted. — Jeffq 07:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Brandwein

edit

No wp article, no intro. Only google hits are free-for-all quote sites of various types. Variants of this quote exist far and wide, so even if he said it, it is likely he paraphrased something else. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 5 July 2005 09:20 (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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 17:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lery PointDuJour

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 11:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 14:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lexi Q

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 13:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: deleted.. — Aphaia 20:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Libbie Fudim

edit

No wp article, ambiguous intro, google hits are quote collections, no sources. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: deleted. — MosheZadka 12:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lifespan

edit

One quote, which is not particularly pithy nor accurate (some calculations I made show neither estimate to be particularly accurate, assuming one millilitre as a drop and a 1x10x10 meter size "child's pool"), made by someone without a wikipedia article and a few scattered blogger-like google profile (some blog copies and some references). The theme is not a particularly important theme either, most quotes would belong in Life, I'd assume. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 29 June 2005 06:16 (UTC)

  • Vote closed: Result: deleted (two deletes, no dissent). ~ MosheZadka 12:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC) (added fm history by User:Jeffq)[reply]
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 29 June 2005 06:16 (UTC)
  • Delete. Quotee is likely LiveJournal user, a university mathematics student in Vilnius, Lithuania, and is almost certainly not unnotable, making the single quote in the article a vanity quote. Without it, this article isn't even a stub. Irrelevant aside: the quote is accurate, in that the ratio of universe age to human lifespan is far closer to a drop in a child's swimming pool than to one in the ocean. Using a Fermi estimate of 10 (not 1) for drops in a milliliter (cubic centimeter), and a 3-meter round, 30cm-deep child's swimming pool (~2 million cc) vs. the world's oceans (~109 km³ = 1018 m³ = 1024 cc) and a Fermi-estimate universe age of 10 billion years compared to human lifespan of 100 years, we get:
    • Ageuniverse/Lifespanhuman = 1010/100 = 108 = 100 million
    • Drops in swimming pool = 10 x Volpool(cc) = 10 x 2,000,000 = 2 x 107 = 20 million
    • Drops in ocean = 10 x Volocean(cc) = 10 x 1024 = 1025
    Therefore, the swimming pool ratio is within an order of magnitude, whereas the ocean ratio is 17 orders of magnitude greater, making the former a far, far closer comparison. BUT it still doesn't make the quotee notable. (Please pardon the digression into my old hobby of Fermi calculations. ☺) Jeff Q (talk) 29 June 2005 10:03 (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.
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: Delete. — Jeff Q (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L'inconnu de ce Monde

edit

Another page tagged as needing translation, with no activity since April. Additionally, just from the structure and repetition, this looks to be a whole work, not just select quotes from one. —LrdChaos 17:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless a translation is provided. —LrdChaos 17:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided. Neither English nor French Wikipedia have an article for L'inconnu de ce Monde or its putative author, Jacques Montaur (or even his supposed real name, "Florimond Dierckx"). (The U.S. Library of Congress shows only 1 work by Montaur, Les essais d’innocence, which at least suggests the potential for notability.) The Wikisource link goes to a non-existent article. Even if evidence is given, I would still want to have a translation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 121a0012 02:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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.
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: deleted. — Jeffq 20:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistics

edit

Shabby creation by anon. Google gave me two results on searching Mr. "Amir Afsai", one is Law page and one seems to be his own website[49].--Aphaia 16:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Lions

edit

See 4 Strings.

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: delete. — MosheZadka 05:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of speeches

edit

No longer any use to the project, as it mostly says that there should be no speeches here. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 03:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Simpsons episodes

edit

This list is copied straight from Wikipedia. Since we don't have pages for most of the episodes listed (and those that do exist are tagged for merge or deletion) most of the links are red, and the images used don't exist here. While there has been some talk about how to handle the case of The Simpsons over at WQ:VP, it seems that the likely outcome is going to be splitting the main page into pages by season, not individual episodes, so nearly all of those links are going to remain red, or just be created as redirects to the season page. If and when the split for the main article is done, this page is going to become mostly redundant to that. —LrdChaos 15:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 19:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long Dong Silver

edit

No quotes. ~ UDScott 21:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: Delete. — Jeff Q (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lores of Halkyn

edit

This article and its Wikipedia partner are about a work of fiction created by two school chums, CTwells (WP userpage) and Pavickers@btinternet.com. While I admire the creative efforts of such individuals, this work is currently so unnotable that even Google hasn't found its website yet (returning only the WP article and another search-engine's results). CTWells, in a response to another Wikipedian's complaint about falsely "protecting" the WP article (possibly just a misunderstanding), admits to Lores of Halkyn "not being a published work (more really a story that appears in a section of the local paper occasionally)". The WP article has been prod'd (i.e., nominated for speedy deletion after 5 days). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 01:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Love Inc.

edit

This page doesn't contain any quotes, just a single sentence saying that it's a TV show. No quotes are provided (which is not say some couldn't be; it is a real show, but articles here shouldn't be created without any quotes at all, in my opinion). —LrdChaos 19:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: Delete. — UDScott 14:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mabvuto Munthali

edit

Vanity ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 05:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia

edit

No quotes. Created through a red-link in Freedom, which I changed to point to wp. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 14:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 06:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Madelyn Kren

edit

18 yo "writer". Probably vanity. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 15:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Sati

edit

No quotes, looks like a beginnings of a vanity biography entry. Delete. jni 08:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (4 Deletes; 1 Keep [from repeat disrupter 0Waldo]; no other dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not only does this person not appear to be notable (no WP article, and the most significant Google hits are all personal blogs — always a bad sign), but the editor creating this article doesn't seem to get the idea of NPOV, like so many of our obvious vanity-article contributors. I'd have to see very compelling evidence of notability for this one. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Am I allowed to vote here? If so I say that this should be deleted unless proof of notability is provided. --Teabeard 10:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, concur with the above. ~ UDScott 15:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. Munchovie say for CHRIST'S sake KEEP! This guy is notable as hell! Delete the JNI page or something useless like that!!! 0Waldo
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.
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: Deleted. ~ Kalki 19:09, 11 March 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel de Castro

edit

If the author of this page is Manuel de Castro, you are welcome to register and create a user page here and post quotes in it that you believe are worthy of attention. Whether you are Manuel or someone else, more information about the author will be required for this page to remain in the main article space of Wikiquote. Articles in the main article space should be by people who are already significantly noted in some field. I personally feel the quotation you added was a notable statement of beliefs and disbeliefs, but if it is not by someone already famous, the page will probably eventually be deleted. If it is by someone still obscure you are still welcome to post it on any user page that you create. All manner of ideas are welcome for presentation in various places in their appropriate forms. The main space is for quotations of people and works already generally considered notable. I hope you will like it here and remain a contributor. ~ Kalki 19:43, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I found no reason to keep it. Or it could be a candidate of moving to WikiPeople, now being proposed. --Aphaia 23:02, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I would vote to delete it. Nothing has been done with it since June 2004.--Sasquach 22:36, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Deleted ~ Kalki
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.
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: delete. — Jaxl 22:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manus Flanagan

edit

Search for name yields nothing notable. - InvisibleSun 20:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — LrdChaos 14:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mar

edit

This page has been without an intro since it's creation in February, but from all appearances, it's a vanity page for a student. —LrdChaos 13:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. —LrdChaos 23:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Adams and Zezima

edit

Both of these pages were created by the same user and are both just meant to be insults to their subjects. —19:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

………………..,-~*'`¯lllllll`*~,
…………..,-~*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll¯`*-,
………,-~*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll*-,
……,-*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll.\
….;*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll,-~*~-,llllllllllllllllllll\
…..\lllllllllllllllllllllllllll/………\;;;;llllllllllll,-`~-,
…...\lllllllllllllllllllll,-*………..`~-~-,…(.(¯`*,`,
…….\llllllllllll,-~*…………………)_-\..*`*;..)
……..\,-*`¯,*`)…………,-~*`~.………….../
……...|/.../…/~,…...-~*,-~*`;……………./.\
……../.../…/…/..,-,..*~,.`*~*…………….*...\
…….|.../…/…/.*`...\...……………………)….)¯`~,
…….|./…/…./…….)……,.)`*~-,……….../….|..)…`~-,
……/./.../…,*`-,…..`-,…*`….,---…...\…./…../..|……...¯```*~-
…...(……….)`*~-,….`*`.,-~*.,-*……|…/.…/…/…………\
…….*-,…….`*-,...`~,..``.,,,-*……….|.,*...,*…|…...\
……….*,………`-,…)-,…………..,-*`...,-*….(`-,…………\
..............f`-,………`-,/…*-,___,,-~*….,-*……|…`-,.....
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.109.206.88 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 26 May 2006 (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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 12:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark R. Watson

edit

Non-notable vanity page. —LrdChaos 13:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — LrdChaos 20:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall medo

edit

Based on his Wikipedia article (catch it while it lasts), a cross between a vanity page and a hoax, the subject has been at the "forefront of teenage culture for the last quarter-century"- i.e, since about five or six years before he was born. Notability, dare one say, has not been demonstrated. - InvisibleSun 19:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: Delete. — LrdChaos 17:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin K. Indik

edit

Non-notable lawyer. —LrdChaos 13:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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.
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: delete. —LrdChaos 14:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martins Dzelde and Dzelde

edit

Both were posted by an anon. Supposedly a vanity. --Aphaia 11:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 06:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Sealy

edit

Search for name and quote yields nothing notable. - InvisibleSun 00:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 07:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Stahl

edit

No obvious notability. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed: Result: delete (3 delete, 1 keep, no verifiable evidence and only non-subjective evidence provided is "featured in PBS documentary" which I'm not sure establishes enough notability) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep MosheZadka first let me thank you for your contibutions to wikiquote and your fastidious attention to the material that is presented here. I am voting to keep because I am aware of the significance of Mason Stahl. Mr. Stahl is a well known lawyer and rapper in the Boston area. His has been featured in a PBS documentary about his unique blend of law and hip-hop. Since he has been featured in a documentary produced by a reputable source I am voting to keep.Muzakman 16:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your kind words. Can you give links to any of the stuff you mention, for independent verification? If he's a "well known rapper", has he produced any CDs? A link to amazon, or indeed giving the ISBN (some CDs have them) or anything like that would be nice. Regarding that PBS documentary, can you give a link to the schedule of that documentary? Has he been featured in any Boston newspapers? Again, specific dates and articles (and links, if they're online) would do a world of good here. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 17:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided. Stahl has little or no presence on Wikipedia (even mentions in w:May 4 and w:List of hip hop musicians were apparently removed). All-Music Guide doesn't list him. On Google, besides cached versions of WP and the current WQ page, I didn't spot him on the first few pages, where I even found mention of a high school student of that name. This strongly suggests he's at most a local phenomenon. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I too can find no information about this person other than what has been cited above. Unless proof of his notability is produced, I vote to delete this page.UDScott 19:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 16:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Smith

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 20:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes; 1 implicit keep from anon; no notability evidence provided). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I couldn't find anything on this person or the films he is supposed to have directed. ~ UDScott 20:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You beat me to nominating this one; a search at IMDb doesn't turn up any matches for the person or the films listed. —LrdChaos 20:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously, Matt Smith is famous, havent u guys seen his movies? Theyre awesome, you guys are missing out. I love his movie called "Breakup.beer.party." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.104.250.115 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are 28 Matt or Matthew Smiths listed in IMDb. If someone can identify which one is supposedly the subject of this article, we might have a reason not to delete it. As for the films this "famous director" is supposed to have helmed:
    • Two Guys Talking: no IMDb record of this exact title; no prominent Google presence; Two Guys Talking About Girls was directed by Steven Pearl
    • Pillow Talk: neither the famous Doris Day/Rock Hudson film nor the apparently obscure 1991 short film lists Smith as participating, let alone directing
    • This Is Not a Pipe: there's a book by philosopher Michel Foucault, but no record in IMDb as a film; the article's phrase "steadily building popularity" is an alarm bell for "non-notable"
    • Breakup.beer.party: also no IMDb record; not one Google hit, with or without the punctuation, spelled either "breakup" or "break up"
    In short, as of this point, we have no reason to believe this is anything but a hoax or an incredibly obscure person. Unless someone can cite actual evidence from a reliable source that we can verify, this is certain to be deleted. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 17:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Whiteman

edit

The page is two nearly-identical quotes by a non-notable Internet radio co-host. The quotes themselves don't really contribute anything to the site; I can't imagine anyone who would come here looking for quotes from this person and be rewarded by having read two quotes merely saying that two things "are fun." —LrdChaos 19:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 18:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Wisniewski

edit

Not notable. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 23:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Conrad

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 19:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: Deleted. — Jeffq 11:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Wilcox

edit

This does appear to be a quote from this person but he appears to be a 20-something minor computer software developer. Does he qualify as notable? Or is this an actual quote from another source? Rmhermen 03:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: Deleted (1 Delete, 1 implicit Delete; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 11:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I couldn't find any notability deserving to Wikiquote, though he seems to be known as a Linux related developer. Just now, an anon claimed we should google for saving it, but from a moral of Reirom issues, I think we don't listen to such attempt to try to have us go outside source. If someone wants to save it, he should state his opinion clearly here and show the evidence of notability of article in question, in my opinion. --Aphaia 02:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: Delete. — UDScott 14:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mavani Vinay

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 14:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: Deleted. — Jeffq 05:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Max Hartshorn

edit
  • Vanity page? Non-notable. Rmhermen 16:52, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: Deleted (2 Deletes, 1 implicit Delete; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 05:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not on Wikipedia; no notable Google hits. Surely a vanity page. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:50, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete almost two weeks passed and now on WQ and its mirrors and only there. A vanity page, for sure. --Aphaia 19:23, 28 Apr 2005 (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.
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: Deleted. — Jeffq 14:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meade skelton

edit

Only biography (and link to the official site, now commented out). I wonder if I can speedy it, but I prefer now to list it here.

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.
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: Deleted. — Aphaia 8 July 2005 08:24 (UTC)

Mervin Gonin

edit

The wikipedia link does not exist, all I see in google is the same extract quoted. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: Deleted (2 deletes, no dissent) --Aphaia 8 July 2005 08:24 (UTC)
  • Delete: ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete after moving quote to an appropriate article, like War. I suspect Colonel Gonin's only fame is this single quote, so he doesn't rate an article himself. Besides, this quote comes by way of UK graffiti artist ("art terrorist", by the article author's wording) Bansky, whose "Manifesto" page provides the quote. I couldn't find the quote with a quick search at the indirectly-referenced source, the Imperial War Museum site. I've copied and edited the relevant info to make this quote better formatted for inclusion in a thematic article. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:51, 25 Jun 2005 (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.
  • Bring him back. If we have an opinion about somebody, why not allow others to form an opinion of their own?
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: delete. — Jeffq 15:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Gear Awesome

edit

This pages looks to be just a transcript of a Flash movie parodying the Metal Gear series of video games, and is almost certainly a copyvio. —LrdChaos 12:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. —LrdChaos 12:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless evidence of both notability and non-violation of copyright provided. Interesting note: the second Google hit, right after the site providing this Flash movie, is from deviantART.com. Suddenly, I'm beginning to get paranoid. Are the deviantART folks making a community effort to post their works on Wikiquote? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enzin's Reply: Look i have all the copyright perission needed to post this. Also it is off the flash but you know people might need to know. Also Egoraptor (Head of MGA) wants this information spread around. Its better to have more on wikiquote than less so there is more info to search. Good day. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.89.254.179 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The problem with transcriptions is that Wikiquote only features fair-use excerpts of material. If this article is a complete or even substantial part of the work, it should go to Wikisource instead. And they will only accept it if the material is either public domain or explicitly released under a GFDL or Creative Commons license, not just a personal attestation that an editor is allowed to distribute it. But we're getting ahead of ourselves; the first issue is whether this subject is notable. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, concur with Jeffq & LrdChaos. ~ UDScott 13:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jeff Q. SorryGuy 00:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 16:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Methuselah Jones

edit

Google result with his name was: 1) Wikiquote 2) another quote site, 3) archive of alt.geek, one of alt newsgroup category. Plausibly vanity. Aphaia 20:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — Jeffq 05:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Micahel Stuart (statistician)

edit

This page was created by an anon user (134.226.1.136) and blanked just a few minutes later (which I take to mean that the author is requesting deletion, but our current speedy deletion policy doesn't cover that as Wikipedia's does). The subject doesn't appear to be notable (52 Google hits for the name, of which none seem to be the mentioned person). —LrdChaos 22:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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: delete. — MosheZadka 01:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]