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]

Michael Askey

edit

There were a bunch of quotes by MA on theme pages. I gathered them all into one page, which I am nominating for deletion. I found no wikipedia article, and google hits find someone named Michael Askey-Doran, possibly the same, who does not seem too notable. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:40, 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. — Jeffq 10:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bloomberg

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 17:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael C. Rush

edit

Cannot find any Michael C. Rush who is a poet. Non-notable. Rmhermen 23:05, 4 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 05:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Joseph Neils

edit

This article has only a single unsourced quote, supposedly from an email. This person has no WP article (either under the full name or "Michael Neils"). Google presents this WQ article as its most prominent webpage. Also, someone decided to turn the latter half of the article into a current-news write-up of the man and his church. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:50, 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. — LrdChaos 17:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Laitman

edit

The notability of this user is under severe question. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Laitman . -- Avi 14:55, 28 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 13:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael morrison

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 12:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent; no identification provided or any other improvements made). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 12:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the specific Michael Morrison is identified, evidence of his notability is provided, and the quotes are sourced. There is an Wikipedia article on Michael Morrison, an accomplished computer book author. But this Wikiquote article currently fails to include any information that indicates whether this is the person intended. (Its Wikipedia link points to a non-existent article.) The quotes listed aren't especially profound or unique, but it's conceivable that they are accurate. However, because this name is so common, and because this article has a whiff of vanity-page about it, I'm going to insist on a verifiable source for the quotes (which should help resolve the other two issues as well). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:18, 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.

Midnight

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: delete. — LrdChaos 14:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might Makes Right

edit

A page for a phrase. This could have been (and indeed, with some effort, could be turned into) a page about the philosophy that "might makes right", but as it stands, it's just a short list of a couple of places where the phrase, or one very much like it, was used. —LrdChaos 13:56, 11 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 20:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Gannon

edit

A teacher at a college -- no evidence of notability. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:09, 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 12:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike mccaughan

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 11:54, 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: delete. — MosheZadka 13:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Minotaur

edit

Encyclopedic stub. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 12:26 (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 Wikipedia, then delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miramax Family Films

edit

The page really belongs on Wikipedia, not here, as it doesn't provide any quotes or really have any potential for quotes (nothing in the article seems particularly worthy of being included at Wikipedia, so I don't think anything needs to be transwiki'd. —LrdChaos 06:51, 2 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 19:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misquotes for comic effect

edit

This was an old instructional (not quote) page that was moved to Wikiquote:Misquotes for comic effect last May. Its talk page didn't get moved, so I just did that myself. It is very unlikely someone would ever think to type this in the Search to find this information. In fact, the WQ: version is an orphan as well. We should delete this redirect (and the redirect of its talk page) and de-orphan WQ:Mfce by categorizing it and possibly linking to it from one or more Help pages. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:55, 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: Delete. — Jeff Q (talk) 01:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mnemonics

edit

Former speedy deletion candidate. Copy and paste from its note:

As user 1-is-blue points out, This page should be removed as it merely duplicates the dynamically generated category list for mnemonics.
"Mnemonics" is one of the Main page "browse" hyperlinks. It currently links to Category:Mnemonics, not this page. (Eustace Tilley, signature added from history) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aphaia (talk • contribs) 09:48, 5 April 2005 (UTC)
  • VOTE CLOSED. Results: Delete (1 Delete, 1 Delete/Rename; no dissent; additional support from 1-is-blue's irregular request for deletion and Eustace Tilley's implied vote by speedy-deletion tagging). I will change its links to Category:Mnemonics. — Jeff Q (talk) 01:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or rename I think this proposal is worthy to consider. The list on this page contains now only four articles, and some other Wikiquotes seem to go well with categories and no list. If we keep it, I propose to rename it List of mnemonics following our naming conventions. --Aphaia 09:48, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The main page does link to this page in the categories section but not in the browser bar. There are several pages on list of categories that don't follow the "List of" format like last words and Epitaphs. Rmhermen 13:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This list provides no current advantages over Category:Mnemonics, which has the same content, but the former must be manually maintained. The current link in "MainPage-> SelectedPages-> Categories" should be changed to the Wikimedia category as well. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:18, 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: Consensus to remove from Wikiquote, but not how. — Jeffq 17:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mojahedin-e Khalgh

edit

Encyclopedic stub. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 12:28 (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 10:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Lewinsky

edit
  • One-line content resembles more someones opinion than quote. Delete. jni 07:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: Delete (5 Deletes; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikiquote is not a biographical dictionary. --Eustace Tilley 10:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jeff Q (talk) 03:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Rmhermen 03:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --RPickman 02:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) Possible quote, but not from Monica.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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]

Motivational

edit

I think this is a bad idea akin to the recently deleted "Favorites" Rmhermen 16:40, 25 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 11:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mousetrap

edit

Assumingly test or mischief, so candidate of speedy deletion, but I would like to listen to others. --Aphaia 06:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Vote closes 06:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Looks more like a graffiti than quote to me. jni 09:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy. vandalism Rmhermen 23:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete for patent nonsense and vandalism (cases #1 and #3), so it doesn't even need a VfD entry. Your caution is commendable, but I believe we can retire this vote immediately. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:26, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted: thank you for your vote. I'll later propose a procedure for such a case on Wikiquote talk:Deletion policy . --Aphaia 11:44, 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: deleted. ~ Kalki 00:44, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mr. Burns

edit

The page Mr Burns has been posted here because it's contents have been added to the Simpsons page, and several users have declared they believe it is not generally appropriate to make seperate pages for fictional characters. ~ Kalki 22:16, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

This has been deleted. ~ Kalki 00:44, 2 Jul 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 00:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Ryan, Mr. Beauvoir, and Mr. Murphy

edit

Not notable.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mudslinging

edit

Inherently POV title (one's man mudslinging is another's open criticism). ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 8 July 2005 12:01 (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. — Jeffq 10:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Music groups

edit

This was nominated for VfD but not listed here. All existing articles in this list are now tagged with Category:Bands or Category:Musicians as appropriate. It could still be used as a "requested" list for musician quote articles. — Jeff Q (talk) 22:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: Delete (3 Deletes; 1 Keep/Rename). — Jeff Q (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Jeff Q (talk) 22:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. We don't have a tradition of red link lists on this project but only lists of actual articles. Rmhermen 02:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename to List of music groups or List of bands. Lists and categories are complementary, not mutually exclusive. jni 10:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • That is only true when a list provides information or formatting that a category cannot. Other than providing a "requested bands" list, are there some additional benefits to this list? — Jeff Q (talk) 02:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.　We are enough with categories. --Aphaia 00:04, 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: Delete. — Jeff Q (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nat Mongioi

edit

No quotes. This page was blanked by its creator shortly after its creation, and recently was tagged by another anon for speedy deletion, for which it does not qualify. —LrdChaos 20:58, 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. — LrdChaos 00:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nathalie Loisau

edit

Not notable. From the results of a Google search, this person seems to be a spokesperson for the French Embassy in Washington, DC, but doesn't seem to be anyone of particular importance there. Certainly, the position is not like the White House Press Secretary, and in general, spokesperson positions are not that notable. —LrdChaos 20:38, 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: delete. — MosheZadka 11:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Naz Baker

edit

Not notable. UDScott 23:49, 27 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 21:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neil

edit

Not notable, and an obvious nonsense vanity page. ~ UDScott 16:40, 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. ~ Kalki

Netcraft

edit

I believe this page (Netcraft) should be deleted. Though articles in magazines, newspapers, and websites can and should be cited as evidence of a quotation, and some journalists who work for them provided article pages, I do not believe sites or magazines should be given their own article pages. In many cases the content could become overwhelming complex and extensive.

Additionally, the comment "BSD is DYING" appears to be wishful thinking on the part of someone NOT at Netcraft:

At http://news.netcraft.com/ : Searched for "BSD is dying" No pages were found containing "BSD is dying".

some articles that did mention forms of BSD: http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2004/06/07/nearly_25_million_active_sites_running_freebsd.html

http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2004/07/05/most_reliable_hosting_providers_during_june.html

~ Achilles 03:19, 17 Jul 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: Delete. — Jeff Q (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neurotically Yours

edit

No quotes. —LrdChaos 13:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless valid quotes are added. —LrdChaos 13:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Undecided. Quotes have been added, and I'll give them the benefit of the doubt as to their validity, but I am concerned about the notability issue that Jeffq raised. The Wikipedia page had been nominated for deletion in May, but the vote was closed early as a "bad-faith nomination"; the issue of notability was not addressed. There are a fair number of Google hits (118,000), which puts it at about 1/4 of that for The Order of the Stick and about 1/2 of Little Gamers (two other webcomics with pages here, though they aren't Flash-based), but there's no definitive line as to how many results 'are enough.' The status of the Wikipedia page, as well as the quotes that exist on the page here, don't exactly instill confidence that it is notable; in particular, the edit history for the WP page seems to indicate that there are a number of various anons and the same few registered members who primarily edit the page. While this is not particularly unusual (people often assume some level of "ownership" of articles, no matter what the policy is), the page still looks and reads like more of a fan page than an encyclopedia entry. All in all, through the convoluted processes of my mind, my feeling is that this isn't really notable enough to merit inclusion here or on Wikipedia, but I'm not really sure. —LrdChaos 18:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. - InvisibleSun 14:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless valid quotes are added. ~ UDScott 14:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 121a0012 03:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Concur with LrdChaos amd UDScott. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Undecided for now. The quotes Skotavus has added strike me as rather inane (except for the somewhat amusing "Jesus was cool" quote), which isn't by itself a compelling reason to axe an article. But since I've never heard of this work before, since it falls into a grey area of notability, and since it hasn't yet been reviewed on Wikipedia (see my comment under Koweja's vote), I'm not willing to support it yet, either. (I'm not up to a WP AfD at the moment.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even if acceptable quotes are found, is NY considered notable enough to be here? - Koweja 17:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good question. We have rejected some online webcomics (essentially what this is) before on the basis of insufficient notability. w:Neurotically Yours has a modest (but non-trivial) multiuser edit history, but seems to be weak on sources at the moment. It might be a good idea to nominate it for deletion to force a review of its notability there, especially as it would be decided within 5 days of nomination, possibly giving us time to benefit from the results. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete! At least let me have some time to put quotes up, people! ;Skotavus
    • Considerable experience at Wikiquote has shown that quote articles created without quotes often (usually?) remain that way for long periods of time, apparently abandoned by their creators. (There may be several reasons for this, but the end result is the same.) Frequently, this problem is resolved by calling attention to it here with a nomination for deletion, which also serves as a "use it or lose it" announcement. It's a bit brusque, but it can get results more readily than simple waiting. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: With 1 day left to go on this nomination, we have a problem. Quotes have been added to the article, but no source is provided, and my quick scan of the Neurotically Yours website shows no obvious way to get these quotes except for wading through all the original material. Therefore, it's hard to say whether these are valid quotes, making LrdChaos and UDScott's position unclear. That leaves what could be considered a lack of consensus, even though only 1 user is definitively supporting the article at the moment. I would ask two things: that Skotavus add to the article specific source information for the quotes (e.g., named "episodes", flash clips, etc., complete with specific URLs for each to allow readers to verify them); and (B) that LrdChaos and UDScott consider whether they believe the quotes are "valid", with or without further evidence. (UDScott is otherwise occupied at the moment, so this may be problematic.) Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a life. —Skotavus 2:08, 6 August 2006 (AEST) If you absolutely feel the need to remove my page, regardless of the fact that it appears I am the only one that edits it and don't spend all my time on the Web looking for things that are wrong on a site that spends plenty of server space on other such inane articles as big-bust actresses, then by all means go ahead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.6.138.35 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • On the assumption that the mis-signature above was an honest mistake (and not a vandal trying to put words in Skotavus's mouth, as occasionally happens) . . . Skotavus, I'm sorry you seem be taking this personally. It isn't. Wikis are an aggregation of material added, deleted, and edited, by a huge population. Each person decides how much and what kind of the many kinds of work they can and will do. Within that population, there are some who choose to spend their time examining existing material for its adherence to the policies of the project. When someone nominates an article for potentially reaching beyond those policies, these folks will do the work they've volunteered for. There will always be articles that don't meet the guidelines, and it may take a while for folks to get around to addressing any particular subject, big bust or no. ☺ We can only address them as a community when they are brought to our attention. In the case of Neurotically Yours, as I've said above, this is not an obvious decision (else I'd have closed it on the 2nd), and further work toward sourcing and/or adding material may — or may not — change the minds of participants. (It's very common for people to change their votes when suggestions are followed, but it's very uncommon for editors to follow them, which is one reason why many nominated articles are deleted.) Regardless of what happens here, I hope that you will consider the larger picture of the project and not get too attached to any one article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:55, 6 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 05:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Providence High School

edit

Seems to be quotes from an unnotable HS. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:56, 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.

NFL Quotations

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 14:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Aranda

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 14:40, 2 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 03:56, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nintendo

edit
  • VOTE CLOSED. Results: Deleted (3 Deletes, 1 Keep). — Jeff Q (talk) 03:56, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nicely structured page, devoid of quotes. Wikiquote's Category:Electronic games has developed around quotes from specific games, so this is like having a page for "Library" instead of for individual books. — Jeff Q (talk) 05:12, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Rmhermen 15:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nicely structured page. - 68.72.123.164 06:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Indeed, but its scope is too wide and doesn't follow our policy. --Aphaia 09:26, 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 15:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obeng de Lawrence

edit

Self created entry linked from a [commercial web page] to lend credibility. See wikipedia AfD entries [[52]] [[53]] -- Jamorama 13:01, 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. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Discrete

edit

This is page is (at the time) an exact duplicate of User:Obvious Discrete, and the quotes appear to be attributable to the user only (with no claim to notability). —LrdChaos 20:40, 24 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. ~ Kalki 19:09, 11 March 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Olav Mjelde

edit

Contains nothing but a question ("Who the heck is olav mjelde?"). Looks like anonymous page creator did so to call attention to a quote in Computers by Mjelde, which itself looks like a vanity quote from an unfamous person (possibly the Olav Mjelde who pops up on various movie- and computer-related websites). — Jeff Q 05:45, 10 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. ~ Kalki 19:09, 11 March 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Putzier

edit
  • Only Google hits for this person are mirrors of this site. Rmhermen 19:53, 9 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. — MosheZadka 7 July 2005 18:37 (UTC)

Ong Lee Shyh

edit

No wp article, no intro, google hits are numerous and all point to the same quote. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 18:37 (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) 03:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other people's money

edit

Notability in this case is not even claimed, since no name has been provided for the quote. - InvisibleSun 03:54, 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: Deleted. — Jeffq 11:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OwlWhacker

edit

Non-notable online post reposted here. Rmhermen 21:59, 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: delete. — MosheZadka 20:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Özhan Öztürk

edit

Copyvio (admitted) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 16:06, 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. — MosheZadka 04:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ozymandias

edit

exists on wikisource. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 18:58 (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: Deleted. — Jeffq 14:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Painkiller Supreme

edit

Vanity. Certainly not a quote page. Just someone perhaps trying to seem profound by being by being puzzling by posting obscure and obscurantist statements here. ~ Achilles 07:46, 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. — MosheZadka 07:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pam Cannon

edit

11th grade teacher, no claim to notability. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:07, 7 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. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pan-atheism

edit

This quoteless encylopedia stub was marked as a transwiki to Wikipedia, but I found that WP had already voted to delete this exact text, and has apparently had recurring attempts(1),(2) to restore it. In short, it ain't gonna be accepted as a transwiki. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:21, 2 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. — LrdChaos 13:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pangea

edit

Appears to be an infantile prank; bogus info, and bogus quotes from a non-existent work; no sign of it or its "directors" or "writers" through Google searches. ~ Harry Tuttle 07:38, 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 08:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paramount Go Christmas!

edit

Possible hoax, and too far in the future if valid. See WP Article for Deletion. This may also include this page as well: 20th Century Fox & Paramount: The Curse of the Imagine Entertainment ~ UDScott 18:31, 10 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 09:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Doo Machine

edit

This article appears to be nonsense. ~ UDScott 16:51, 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. — Jeffq 00:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patti Cannon

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 19:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Boese

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 11:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent; no response from creator, no improvement to sources or evidence provided). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 11:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided and quotes sourced. At least one quote is indeed widespread as claimed in the article. However, that only means it's popular, not that it comes from this person. I've fixed the WP link to point to a (currently nonexistent) WP article (instead of "Name" — another inputbox/template oversight). I've also asked the article creator for notability evidence. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:29, 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 22:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paulyxxx

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 17:18, 21 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. — LrdChaos 13:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Penelope mortimer

edit

Unless quotes are provided, this page should be deleted. - InvisibleSun 12:30, 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: delete. — Jeffq 19:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter dinatale

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 18:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes; 1 unserious Keep*; no other dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • * Comment: 0waldo's vote, while legitimately signed, included another attempt to subvert the VfD process by disguising the vote as an edit for non-existent entry "SNAFU". He also continues to use VfD to advocate the irrelevant deletion of a user (reminiscent of Cato and the Carthaginians), supports articles that clearly violate policy, and in general be disruptive. I will not consider his votes to be serious unless and until he demonstrates that his involvement with Wikiquote is about Wikiquote and not about his own self-promotion and retaliation for his failure to justify his own quote article by Wikiquote standards. If members of the community disagree with my opinion and actions, they should comment at Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 18:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability failure. jni 20:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided. No info on subject, no WP article, little if any Google presence. Suspect a high-school student vanity page. I've posted a vanity-warn notice on the editor's talk page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP MUST KEEP THIS one ! Munchovie says NO DELETE. delete JNI and keep JEFFQ too. :) 0waldo 03:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC) P.S. this is my real vote that I am entitled to so I say KEEP.[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Burns

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 16:47, 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. — Jeffq 01:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Kraft

edit

Non-notable schoolteacher; it also appears that much of the page is just student's recollections of quotes, and nearly all of the edits (those from IP 66.10.167.1) are from a computer at the school. —LrdChaos 16:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (4 Deletes from regular contributors; 2 Keeps from anons, one of whom tried to delete this entry, both of whose sole contributions were to this article, its VFD entry, and other VFD-nominated vanity articles). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:24, 24 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!

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Agre

edit

Probably this guy, an associate professor. I am unsure he has claim to notability beyond being an associate professor, and every college has several, so I doubt it is enough. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:06, 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: delete. — Jeffq 00:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phreaky A

edit

Supposed 15-year old rapper with no WP article or All-Music Guide entry under "Phreaky A", "Andrew Nikulin", or even "D2M". Only current evidence of existence (let alone notability) is from 2 links: an indirect mention in a D2M entry on Soundclick.com, which allows anyone to upload their music (I'll have to try this myself sometime), and an MSN Spaces page, hardly a reliable source. ~ 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 03:45, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

edit

No quotes, and probably no quotes until mid-2006 (promos) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 23:24, 31 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. — MosheZadka 01:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Places

edit

I think we are better to not have it. Like "anime" or "favorites". In the past time we need to have lists but today we are discussing replace lists with categories. From my view, this is out of date attempt. We have already Category:Places and this list is redundant and less convinient to maintain.

And even if this page should survive, it should be "List of places" following our convention in my opinion. --Aphaia 20:58, 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. — MosheZadka 03:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Portal

edit

More portal leftovers I forgot to VfD ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:45, 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: delete. — Jaxl 17:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proverb: A bird in the hand

edit

This page deals solely with a single quote, namely, the proverb that "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." On this basis alone, it's the sort of thing generally discouraged here, but the content doesn't do it any favors. The page's content is simply the proverb, or something very similar to it, in several different languages. While that might be useful information to someone, it doesn't seem like the sort of thing that belongs in the English language Wikiquote (or, really, any of the other language Wikiquotes for that matter). —LrdChaos 14:48, 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.

Pranks

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 05:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pravin mansukhai

edit

Non-notable, bad wp link, miscapitalized. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:24, 17 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.

Deleted articles Q-S

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: UNIDENTIFIED. NO SIGNATURE

Quentin Tarantino

edit

Dead copy of studyworld.com. --Aphaia 8 July 2005 04:05 (UTC)

  • VOTE CLOSED: delete and replace with better version (4 delete, 3 replace, no dissent)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 User:Quenzer. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quenzer

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 12:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed early because this is a user page created by a new user in the main article space. I have moved it as described below and will delete the redirect after a few days, per policy. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 12:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. The author should move the quotes to his own userpage instead. jni 12:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to User:Quenzer. I've advised the user of our policy and told them that I will move this article if they don't object by 19:00 (UTC) on 13 February. (This is in keeping with the practice of moving user pages out of main article space, except that I'm asking the user to opt out rather than wait for them to request it. I hope to avoid the problem we often have of such users never bothering to respond and just having their quotes deleted.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:04, 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: Deleted. ~ Kalki 19:09, 11 March 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quiz

edit

Quiz isn't really a quote, it's a quiz someone just added. They also added it to the front page as a link, so I deleted that, but I can't delete the actual entry. PERHAPS there is call for a "Famous Quizzes and Tests" page, but it seems to stretch the definition of what Wikiquote is for. So I vote to DELETE "Quiz" entry, and I also vote NO to a "Famous Quizzes" page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.205.177.231 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 10 February 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete "Quiz", and no to famous quizzes 219.88.47.67 23:33, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete and no as well. ~ TOR 09:26, 7 Jan 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 19:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation Chalkboard

edit

This page doesn't belong in the article space; the single thing mentioned on it seems like it should be at Wikiquote:Reference desk. I've put the question up there, and mentioned it on the user's talk page, so I don't think there's a need to keep this page around. —LrdChaos 03:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. —LrdChaos 03:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We definitely don't want this page, even in Wikiquote: space. If someone knows the MediaWiki system, they know "PROJECT:Reference desk" is the place to ask questions. If they don't, "chalkboard" is not intuitive (though understandable in hindsight). I just noticed that we were missing some logical links to WQ:RD, so I've added one to the Main Page (why was this absent?!), one to Wikiquote:Welcome, newcomers, and clarified the entertainingly whimsical but rather abstruse advice with the link at the top of Village pump. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found out how this came into being. Wikiquote talk:Misquotes for comic effect (formerly Talk:Misquotes for comic effect) had a discussion that included Kalki's quote about Pope saying "ignorance is bliss". It also mentioned some suggested titles for an article collecting misquotations, including one with a red link — "Quotation Chalkboard". Obviously the anon must have clicked on this to post their question about Kalki's statement. (Bear in mind that this conversation took place when Wikiquote was only about 6 months old and had far less than 1000 articles. There was a lot of informality among the extremely small community back then, as they were still "inventing" WQ.) This is an interesting case study in how old discussions can come back to haunt us years later. That's why it's a good idea to write not only to respond to individuals currently engaged in a discussion, but also to inform people who will come across the discussions months or years later.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, concur with the above. ~ UDScott 11:31, 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: Delete. — UDScott 14:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Raimond Verwei

edit

Not notable, and I'm skeptical of listed quotes. ~ UDScott 15:11, 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. — Jeffq 21:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Johns

edit

Non-notable person. A search on the name yields around 700 results, of which none seems notable or to be the person meant (though the lack of an intro means this is just a feeling). —LrdChaos 19:27, 15 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 16:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recovered/Wikiquote, Recovered/Template

edit

Another set of double redirects. Is there any reason we need to keep them? --Aphaia 4 July 2005 09:23 (UTC)

  • Question: What is the purpose of the 26 current pages that begin with "Recovered" and have subpages representing existing articles (mostly from Wikiquote: namespace):
RecoveredAbout RecoveredAnnouncements RecoveredCommunity Portal RecoveredFAQ
RecoveredGuide to layout RecoveredHistory of Wikiquote RecoveredHow to edit a page RecoveredHow to start a page
RecoveredIssues RecoveredManual of style RecoveredPolicies and guidelines RecoveredPublic domain resource
RecoveredRecentchanges RecoveredRequested entries RecoveredSandbox RecoveredSpellings
Recovered/Template RecoveredThemebot RecoveredUtilities RecoveredVillage pump
RecoveredVote RecoveredVotes for deletion RecoveredWelcome, newcomers RecoveredWhat Wikiquote is not
Recovered/Wikiquote RecoveredWikiquotians
Although the two currently nominated for deletion are one-edit pages, some of these have long histories. I don't feel comfortable voting until I understand why they exist in the first place. — Jeff Q (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just assumption. They were once in the project namespace, they were named "wikipedia" (because then the site was "quote.wikipedia.org"). From some point, Wikipedia:XX can't be accessed as a page on Wikiquote, and then those files were recovered by a developer and then moved to the current places by Kalki, around 17 July 2004. So I guess those files (including redirects) aren't necessary to keep, but also not neccesary to delete. They occupy "Ancientpages" and some special pages and a bit annoying but it would be okay simply to turn them to redirects.
Those two merged because they were double-redirects; I fixed them to the correct descinations. --Aphaia 23:24, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them all. The main article namespace shouldn't have titles like "Recovered", even if they're redirects. As long as the page histories are intact in the current articles (and based on a few spot checks, it looks like they are), we should get rid of all of these unneeded and confusing pages left over from a maintenance operation. — Jeff Q (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. There seems not to be anything worthwhile in page histories we need to keep. jni 06:55, 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: delete. — MosheZadka 13:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RedStar2000

edit

Not notable. See w:Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Redstar2000. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 22:25, 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 21:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reeses Roper

edit

Non-notable musician. Search turns up only two results for the name, and neither is relevant in the slightest (both pages are just collections of keywords with a redirect to a search engine). —LrdChaos 16:29, 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: Deleted. ~ Kalki 11:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reirom

edit

A google search finds half a dozen sites with this same strange misspelled quote and definition. Some sort if hoax surely. Rmhermen 16:23, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: like this? Anyway it isn't atributed even to anonym and means almost nothing. Not worthy to keep in my opinion. --Aphaia 17:14, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Reirom is very known in the emulation scene, it redefined the concept of Troll, it is very famous in the EFNet. Some people and many tech-scenes says: Have two ages: before reirom, and after reirom. --Mateusc 00:03, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --Oblivion 21:41, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete : Unless some understandable context can be provided for this peice of gibberish,it should be disposed of within the next week. It does not seem to be "very known" on the "emulation scene", nor have any common usage beyond the handful of google hits that have been mentioned, where it seems to have been posted in a similar fashion as on this wiki. It seems to be perhaps some personal prank or private code, neither widespread nor noteworthy beyond some very small clique, and perhaps merely the contrivance of some odd individual. ~ Kalki 14:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Amending my comment slightly: there does seem to be some reference of "Reirom" on some talk pages for emulation games dating back to at least 2000. But it still does not seem to be either very widespread, nor very clear what these statements refer to: and until there is some more information and clearer context provided, as to why this should be considered a "quotable" or "notable" statement of someone, I would still vote to delete. ~ Kalki 18:56, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Wait. Wikipedia has a similarly confusing article on Reirom, but they have 1,000 times the eyeballs to poll for hard details and references. I've VFD'd its page in the hopes that someone other than the contributors of these articles (on both sites) can substantiate it or confirm it to be unencylopedic. — Jeff Q (talk) 06:43, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. I changed my vote because the Wikipedia article has now been deleted after an overwhelming vote (with only Wikipedia's Mateusc and an anonymous user dissenting). Furthermore, both our Mateusc and Oblivion above have exactly the same total contribution pattern at Wikiquote — recording their Reirom Keep votes here, creating a one-line User page, and tweaking Reirom, suggesting that they only registered here to vote against deletion, and that one may be a sockpuppet of the other. Finally, Mateusc has not responded to my request on their talk page that they provide some hard evidence of assertions that "Reirom" is somehow notable. — Jeff Q (talk) 14:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • NOTE: Aphaia just reverted vandalism of this page by an anon who removed all but the two Keep votes. I just reverted yet another removal of the vfd tag on the article itself and blocked the user for 24 hours for vandalizing VFD, after earlier removing two anon votes that were fraudulently masquerading as registered users. I am too involved in stopping these assaults (even while trying to get these people to actually make a case) to feel comfortable closing the vote, even though we're well past the two-week recommendation AND the Wikipedia page has been deleted by loud acclamation. Could some other sysop finalize this vote, please? — Jeff Q (talk) 09:35, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Strongly delete: We need no vanity. --Aphaia 07:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) (Moved 09:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) by author herself)
Deleted ~ Kalki 11:41, 8 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 07:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rev. J. R. MacDonald

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 14:17, 25 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. — LrdChaos 23:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rev Timms

edit

This is a character from a TV show for which we don't have a page; ordinarily, I would just say it should be turned into a page for the show, but it seems like it's very hard to get quotes added to pages for children's shows (which this is), and a short quote like this one is hardly the basis for a good stub. —LrdChaos 02:50, 13 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 21:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rex Exitium

edit

I'm not sure that this is anything more than nonsense. Is there a source for these quotes and for the identity of the person? Otherwise, it just seems like drivel from a chat site. ~ UDScott 12:25, 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. — Jeffq 14:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Childers

edit

No intro, no wp page, creation comment seems to indicate someone fairly average. Google hits exist, but none establish notability. Suspect vanity. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:34, 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: delete. — Jeffq 06:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard French

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 21:53, 2 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 14:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richard L Kempe

edit

While the quotes listed are good, I can't find any information about this person on the Net. I therefore question his notability (let alone his existence). UDScott 19:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do exist and have added a short description of myself. Also see www.taxcraft.com. I'm not a well known person and I hope reputation is not a decisive requirement here. Richard L Kempe 10:19 12-5-05
    • It is a decisive requirement here, but you're encouraged to create a new user account, and add a selection of your quotes in your new userpage - and also help improve other wikiquote pages. iddo999 15:34, 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: delete. — MosheZadka 13:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Ryan

edit

Another professor. Professor notability guidelines: [57] has papers of his in books, but that falls short of actually writing a book. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed: Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete UDScott 16:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As I implied in the "Carolyn Crouch" VFD entry, a handful of publications is practically a requirement for university professors, most of whom aren't typically considered notable enough for WQ articles. However, I might be persuaded if the existing quote is sourced (maybe from one of the publications cited on the Self-Determination Theory website?), more quotes are added, and (especially) a Wikipedia article is created that the WP crowd finds notable enough to retain. If this last step is in progress, I'd be willing to extend the vote a few weeks to see how things pan out. (But article promoters should expect me to nominate the WP article for AFD [articles for deletion] to encourage WP editors to consider the matter thoughtfully, so the other evidence is highly recommended.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:57, 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: delete. — LrdChaos 15:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Leeper

edit

Non-notable person whose page has no quotes. Google turns up just over a hundred hits on the name, and at least one on the first page seems to confirm that a person with that name does play golf, but I think the connection with reality ends there. —LrdChaos 04:17, 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. — Jaxl 17:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Riopelle

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 12:14, 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. — Jeff Q (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ridge Racer

edit

Supposedly dedicated for a videogame, but currently with one quote(?), it would be rather a speedy candidate for my eyes... --Aphaia 13:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Not a vote, but I'd just like to point out that a lot of content was blanked on July 17, which I've now restored. -- Robert 14:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that previously-deleted content has been restored. —LrdChaos 15:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but trim to avoid copyright violation, as it seems like it might be quoting too much (possibly everything) of what is said in the video game. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete unless trimmed to pithy subset of quotes. (It also needs source format cleanup.) A quick review of the relevant WP articles suggest that the only truly notable quote from this game series is its title, spoken dramatically ("Riiiiidge RACER!"). Looking over the existing article, I couldn't determine which if any of the other quotes stood out, and I don't have the familiarity with the subject that would help me make this call. If the involved editors don't show any interest in justifying this article's existence by editing it down to such a subset, I'd prefer to get rid of this one and wait for someone who will do the necessary work. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Looking at the page in detail, I don't know if it would be a copyvio as-is. It appears as though many of the quotes grouped under the "Quotes" section are from different games in the series, not all from the same game. I don't know how many quotes there are in each game, though, and if the list includes all of them (which, I admit, is quite possible, considering it's a racing game, which involves very few quotes) then it would be. —LrdChaos 18:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone volunteers to reduce quotes for potential copyvio. - InvisibleSun 03:19, 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. — MosheZadka 13:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rishi tandon

edit

Not notable. Deleted on wikipedia. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:13, 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 09:56, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Robert Frank

edit

Appears to be personal quotes from the page creator. Note the original edit which just consisted of two links to his website. Rmhermen 21:05, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Page was created as link to creator's website. Even if he's notable, it's not Wiki policy to have people create articles about themselves, except for User pages. — Jeff Q (talk) 04:48, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Deleted. Aphaia 09:56, 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. ~ Kalki 19:09, 11 March 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert J. Petry

edit

Appears to be personal vanity page. Only Google hits were [58] Rmhermen 14:59, 5 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 02:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert M Kennedy

edit

Lacking notability. - InvisibleSun 00:33, 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: delete. — Jeffq 22:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Pastel

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 19:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; 1 Keep from vote-only editor; 1 unsigned vote struck; no source for notability claims cited as requested). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless evidence of notability is produced. ~ UDScott 19:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, He is known for thirty-two publications, 2 patents, B.S. Mathematics, M.S. Engineering Science, M.S. Computer Science, and a Ph. D. Physics Cearum 19:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Prof Pastel is one of the most memorable professors to students that have had him at MichiganTech. Pastel’s random quotes inspire students to listen in an abstract but intuitive way. Many people come to class just to hear his odd remarks only a small fraction of which are posted here.
  • Delete. Understandable admiration by one's students does not qualify as notability for a global quote compendium. (I had a wonderful history prof whose clever quotes were well-known throughout my school, but that doesn't make him WQ-notable, either.) Nor does Pastel have a Wikipedia article. None of the qualifications listed above by Cearum are cited, nor are they evident in a quick Google search, and probably wouldn't raise him above the usual professor-notability threshhold anyway. Furthermore, as is usually the case with university professors with wiki-editing students, there is likely no published source to allow editors to verify the quotes that are included in the article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:49, 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. ~ Kalki 19:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Roofi Shaikh - 2004

edit

I indicated on this article's Roofi Shaikh - 2004 talk page that the article pages at Wikiquote, like those at the Wikipedia, are intended for people and works which have already attained some degree of public prominence. A Google search for "Roofi Shaikh" yeilded 20 results, none of them indicating that this person is notable enough for an article page. I thus am putting this on the list here. WE NEED to make a more prominent assertion of the differences between the two types of pages, and clearly state the policy against "vanity pages" for those who are not yet sufficiently prominent to clearly merit an article. ~ Achilles 13:37, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Deleted ~ Kalki 19:16, 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. — Jeffq 02:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruzkin

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 13:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes; 1 Keep; some notability evidence provided, but failed to sway votes.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 13:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable vanity page. —LrdChaos 13:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided. The sources for the 2 current quotes are from discussion boards, which are not wiki-reliable sources. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't DeleteThe wikipedia reliabiltity article states that websites can be used as primary sources if the person in question is the creater of the webpage. Ruzkin is a moderator of all on pkaus, and so can be called an author of the webpage. Secondly, he is a notable figure in both the Australian Parkour Scene and Australian Tricking scene, although it is unlikly you would have heard of him if you were not involved in either of these groups.—Yacob
    • Two points to consider about Yacob's statement:
      1. The "Personal websites as primary sources" section does allow for personal websites to supply supplemental information, but makes clear that they are not treated as reliable sources, nor do they automatically convey notability. Wikipedia only uses them to provide likely POV material to articles which must be verified elsewhere. Anyone can create a website, but only indepedent sources can demonstrate notability.
      2. On the other hand, since Wikiquote wants a person's own words, personal websites of an independently-confirmed notable person could be used as a source for quotes themselves.
      Providing other parkour and tricking sources that indicate the notability of Ruskin might very well resolve my objection. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have moved the quotes to the atttributed section, so they are no longer sourced by him but are attributed to him. I do not agree with this however, forums should be a genuine source of information, as they were posted the person in question, so they are their words in electronic format. The internet is a growing force which wikipedia itself obviously is a huge part of and as more and more information is compiled directly into computers and online, which according to this policy is not a reputable source. Just because a book says something dosn't mean its true either, so why should books be given much more reliability over internet forums? This is intended as a question and not as a flame, so please take it as such. As per your second comment, although it is unlikly that Ruzkin is known as well outside Australia as he is here, although I do belive he mods www.nztraceur.com boards, and is therefore notable in New Zealand as well. —Yacob
  • Well, I have been trying to edit my previous comment and it keeps changing, so ill just put a new one here. In addition to moderating pkaus he moderates Urban Freeflow (the worlds largest parkour site) forums as well. Therefore he is notable outside Australia. I do belive this removes any arguments you had against his notability, and I would ask that you research more deeply next time, there are a lot of people in the world scattered throughout a lot of groups/organisations and you cannot possibly know them all. Parkour has been an underground movement for a long time, so it has still yet to come into the public eye, which is why you would not have of many names either. David Belle? Sebastian Foucan? Cyril Raffaelli? It is not likely you have heard of these names either, but in the Parkour world they're bigger than Jesus :). And before with the message you sent me LrdChaos, sorry yeah it was me but I wasn't logged in. Finally, since I have moved the quotes and provided solid evidence for Ruzkins notability, is this vote now cancelled? I have not recieved any reply's over this weekend, so I am unsure to what happens now. —Yacob
    • Yacob, could you please read the information at the top of this page, which says (in bold) what you should read before contributing to this page? If you did, you would find, among other useful information, that VfD entries must remain here for a minimum of 2 weeks unless their subjects can be speedy-deleted, which is clearly not what you want. Please also note that everyone editing here is a volunteer with no set schedule, even the sysops, so yuu cannot expect people to respond immediately to requests. In fact, if you look around at the rest of this page, you'll find that we've been extremely busy with a spate of vanity articles from people who seem to have far more time to complain and vandalize than the regular editors have to respond and repair. Please be patient. As for your "evidence", you have provided no specific, verifiable information yet. You have given the Wikiquote community hints about where to find the information, but you have not provided any new weblinks, print publication titles, audiovisual citations, or anything actually considered a reliable source by Wikimedia Foundation standards. If you want to convince others of your statements, give them verifiable sources and links to check. If you just make claims and require others to do the legwork, you may not succeed. (If you review other entries, you will find examples of how editors provide citations and links that support their statements. Hint: the current entries for "You're either with us, or against us", "George Fernandez", "Love Inc." (ignoring my "W.C." joke), "Joshua Alexander Scruggs", and "Micahel Stuart (statistician)" include some common kinds of specific evidence for successful arguments.) The more specific and more readily verifiable the information, the more likely you will be able to change people's minds. You have time to make your case, as this entry will remain here at least until 26 May. Since I have just spent all of my own VfD-allocated time for now explaining this to you, I must defer the source checking I was going to do on your information until much later. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, evidence. It is hard to show evidence of somebodies online status from an offline source, so here is the online evidence for his status. Pkaus: On this link, the rank of pkaus.com team means he is a moderator: http://www.pkaus.com/forum/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=6. I am sorry but I am unable to supply the links to his Urban Freeflow moderator status from these boards http://pub77.ezboard.com/burbanfreeflow , as ezboards are blocked over the proxy server which I am operating from. If however, once in these ezboard you go to the memberlist you will be able to find his name with a rank of 'moderator' or something similar. As for the quotes, since they come from unreliable sources or word of mouth, they have been moved to the Attributed section which I think will negate any comments about their authenticity. —Yacob
      • Yacob, I have already said that while discussion boards may be a reasonable source of quotes (not everyone would agree), they are definitely not reliable sources for notability evidence. However, in my very first attempt to find out who this person is, I Googled for "Chris Hayes-Kossman" (Ruzkin's real name), was redirected to "Chris Hayes-Kossmann" (note the extra "n"), and found that the first reference was for a transcription of an ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) "Stateline Canberra" interview with Hayes-Kossmann and Aaron Pakula on parkour. That is what we call a reliable source. Unfortunately, none of the other 4 Google hits was reliable, nor were most even relevant (although they all seemed to be about "Ruzkin"). On the other hand, the apparent misspelling yielded a single hit for deviantART.com, which may be worrisome to regular readers of VfD, as we had considerable negative experience from another deviantART denizen, Walter Muncaster (aka User:0waldo), who also had difficulty providing verifiable notability info on his subject (himself). "Ruzkin" yields even more deviantART-related material. This may be utter coincidence, but it is not confidence-building. I would focus on getting exact information about Hayes-Kossmann's TV and radio appearances, and try to find some parkour/traceur-related print sources. Surely someone on the discussion boards could suggest some? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is the link to the ABC Stateline (An Australian 'current affairs' show). This has ruzkin in it, although it is a 75MB download. http://www.pkaus.com/Media/Articles/Stateline-ACTPK-29Apr2006.avi . The radio-interview you linked to is this Ruzkin, although an audio copy for download is not available, searching here http://www.pkaus.com/ will show that under the 'Parkour Media Blitz' news segment it says Quote: "Recent radio inteview featuring ruzkin: to be sourced", so an audio copy is not available. I am currently looking for recent newspaper articles featuring the Canberra parkour scene, although to my knowledge there has been no print media published on the Canberra parkour scene, only on the other major cities of Australia. Also, it is very likly that the deviantART Ruzkin is the same as the pkaus Ruzkin, firstly due to the 'favorite things' on both websites are identical, that the locations are both in Australia and that their is a 'Kraden' in both pkaus and deviantART. Kraden is one of Ruzkins followers in the canberra parkour scene; and is called Kraden on pkaus as well, with his location listed as Canberra. Finally, both pkaus users link to the repective deviantART pages in this thread. http://www.pkaus.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=535 . Ruzkin also says he is the deviantART Ruzkin, as is Ruzkin.com. I am still trying to track down the radio inteview too.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Livingston

edit

20 yo, made article by same-named user. Probably vanity. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:33, 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. — MosheZadka 06:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Schreiber

edit

No quotes. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:06, 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 13:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sabri Kalic

edit

No quotes. ~ UDScott 12:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent; no further information provided.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless quotes are added. ~ UDScott 12:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for three reasons. First, this quoteless article is an exact copy of the en:Wikipedia stub article. (Kalic, or Kaliç, does have a tr:Wikipedia article, but it's not much better, looking like similar stubby information followed by a bunch of credits — in Turkish, of course.) Second, Kalic doesn't even have a Turkish Wikiquote article under either "Sabri Kaliç" or "Sabri Kalic". Third, and most important, how do we know how notable this person is? A Google search of English pages provides only 36 distinct hits, very few of which seemed to have any meaningful content. Without sources or links, and with most other Google hits in Turkish, we can't really verify anything. We expect editors to provide some evidence of notability even of English-language subjects. Surely this is far more important for Turkish subjects on en:WQ. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:40, 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, pending technical fix. — jni 06:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy Gouti

edit

text of original deletion debate: Sammy Gouti. Non famous. His articles have recently been deleted from the English and French Wikipedias for this reason. He was also listed as a problem user at Wikipedia for contunally adding his name to list of famous psychologists/ philosophers/ statisticians etc etc. Angela 21:53, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Seconded. Nanobug 23:09, 6 Oct 2003 (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. — Robert 17:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Lee Smith and Sam Smith

edit

No quotes. —LrdChaos 15:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. —LrdChaos 15:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. — No quote, and it appears of only local interest Jawesq 16:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided. I added Sam Smith to LrdChaos's nomination of Samuel Lee Smith because they were both created by the same anonymous user and appear to be about the same person. (I have no idea why they made one an intro-less quote article and the other a quoteless intro article.) I think they should be considered together, as it's at least possible that one solid article could be made from them. Currently, there is no WP article for "Samuel Lee Smith", "Samuel L. Smith", or "Sam L. Smith", and "Sam Smith" redirects to w:Samuel Smith, which does not include anyone as described in our current "Samuel Lee Smith" article. The Faith Christian Church link provided in SLS is just its main page; it doesn't include any info on "Pastor Sam". It took some digging, but I found an article on the Center (that mentions Smith) at SouthCoastToday.com, the online face of The Standard Times, a New Bedford, Massachusetts newspaper. I found no source for the sole quote in SS. All in all, it sounds like a relative unnotable, however fond of him his parishioners may have been. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both articles. - InvisibleSun 16:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. ~ UDScott 18:32, 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: delete. — LrdChaos 18:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Satchel Cohen

edit

It appears this is a hoax (see its AFD nomination on Wikipedia). User:Netsnipe requested that the page be speedy-deleted, but Wikipedia's patent nonsense page specifically says that hoaxes are not considered patent nonsense, and this are not speedy-deletable. —LrdChaos 15:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a hoax. —LrdChaos 15:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Hoaxes are classed as vandalism, and vandalism may be speedily deleted. JzG 15:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please do not strike my sig. The above was a comment for information from a WP admin, not a vote. All the Wikipedia articles have now been rmeoved as "simple vandalism" (speedy G3). JzG 09:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The above two posts were made by 62.73.137.190 (talk · contributions). (We have no way of knowing whether you are the identified WP user, but your point about commenting is taken.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • JzG was the admin on wikipedia who speedied the articles and blocked the sockpuppets. I think here we can use common sense and assume good faith that it is the same person and he is being helpful and informative. Tyrenius 17:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I hesitate generally to combine anon sig with a certain registered user on another project, so I'd like to think it anon's comment as usual: it could be hardly proven and the identification is not the matter of "assume good faith". Note that I don't say if it is impostoring or not; we will take his or her comment based on assuming good faith, but it isn't relevant principally who said that.
        • So I prefer to stroke "faked sigs" rather keep them, since I convince we shouldn't encourage anon editors to comment in such a manner. However I can accept a compromise to put a remark like JeffQ made.
        • As for the latter part of his second comment, I can't simply understand why he should input it. VfD is not a place to change policy at all and there is no reason a EN WP policy should instantly be appliable to other projects. I appreciate your information though, but feel the autonomy of our project threaten and ignored. Even on good faith, it could be still very annoyable. --Aphaia 05:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hoax background on wikipedia NB Tyrenius is not the hoaxer! -- Tyrenius 15:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC) (first edit on wikiquote)[reply]
  • Not sure of the procedure here, but I thought I'd mention all the other articles in this batch have been speedy deleted on wikipedia via a creative interpretation of "blatant vandalism". Tyrenius 17:46, 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 16:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Frampton

edit

Yet another "well-known" person of whom little or nothing is evidently known. - InvisibleSun 15:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closed. Result: delete (6 deletes, incl. 1 implicit; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:37, 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. — Jeff Q (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Neakums

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 12:14, 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. — LrdChaos 13:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Kwiatkowski

edit

Likely a vanity page for an apparently non-notable person. Google doesn't return any pages that indicate notability. Koweja 12:52, 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: delete. — MosheZadka 16:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ségur

edit

Although there were several persons whose family name were Ségur, I suspect it would be a vanity based on google result [59] --Aphaia 20:58, 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. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Selena Ravot

edit

Self-admitted vanity. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:46, 10 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. — Jeffq 07:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Self-proclaimed deities

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 11:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sgt. Jamie Shrope

edit

No intro, single unsourced quote is dated "2005", suspect vanity. ~ MosheZadka (Talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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]

Shabbir Moiz Ali Hazari

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 12:11, 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: delete. — Jeffq 04:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Fender

edit

Search for name reveals no evidence of notability. Search for quotes yields zero results. - InvisibleSun 11:53, 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 (Talk) 11:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Lively

edit

Vanity (wp page links to userpage) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 08:53, 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 3 quoteless, keep 1 redirect. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sharmell

edit

No quotes. This nomination also includes the following pages: Jacqueline, Midnight, and Sister Sherri, none of which contain quotes. ~ UDScott 12:47, 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. — Aphaia 09:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Mikula

edit

The corresponding Wikipedia article w:Shawn Mikula has been deleted multiple times with prejudice, see w:Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Shawn Mikula. There appears to be a persistent self-promotion campaign by Mr. Mikula himself to insert his vanity bio to various wikis. w:simple:Shawn Mikula and w:da:Shawn Mikula are protected against re-creation and from Google I found deletion log entries for es, bg, de and it wikis. Delete. jni June 27, 2005 05:57 (UTC)

  • Comment: I find many of Dr. Shawn Mikula's quotes extremely thought-provoking. Plus he has an extensive web presence and has many accomplishments to his name. I vote to keep his quotes.
    • Added by User:128.120.134.29, moved to standard fmt by me. Should probably be disregarded as it is not explicitly signed. Urged user to sign properly. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 27 June 2005 08:59 (UTC)
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 27 June 2005 09:00 (UTC)
  • Delete. We should be prepared for retaliatory vandalism, based on Wikipedia's experience, for the nerve to suggest Mr. Mikula isn't God's gift to philosophy, even though he seems to be the only one who thinks so. And just for the record, the article creator is the one who made the improperly unsigned vote above to keep. I wonder who that may be? — Jeff Q (talk) 27 June 2005 09:51 (UTC)
  • Keep but after blanked and protected. English Wikiquote have 30 deleted revisions. It means it has been created at least 1.5 times in a month (assumingly the rest might be "deletion" tagging"). Even if we can speedy it from the next time, it is a waste of time. --Aphaia 28 June 2005 03:59 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not only not notable, but a lot of very bad, very trivial quotes. --Calton 05:57, 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: delete. — Jeffq 01:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn triscari

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 12:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes from regular contributors; 5 remaining Keeps from editors who only contributed to this article, some of whom engaged in vote forging and some who may be sockpuppets; absolutely no evidence notability evidence established, even with repeated requests; standard excuses and dodges for such requests). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:21, 24 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!

  • Delete. ~ UDScott 12:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Merely claiming that someone is "a significant person" does not make them notable. —LrdChaos 13:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : possible impersonation of me, or a rather odd coincidence, was involved with an editor of this page. ~ Shadow 22:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete —This unsigned comment is by 65.43.180.63 (talk • contribs) .
  • Do Not Delete Auraschild 20:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's possible that User:Auraschild is the same user as 65.43.180.63, as they earlier replaced the unsigned tag with their signature. [60] —LrdChaos 20:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um no, It's called a school network and/or a LAN. They all have same IP addresses.Auraschild 21:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This may be true, but is irrelevant. We have consecutive edits that show that Auraschild took an edit added by 65.43.180.63 [61], signed it with his/her signature [62], then added a second vote (still logged on as Auraschild) claiming to be "JJ aka ShadowZero" [63]. The first may be an unlogged user fixing a signature; we have no practical way to verify this (which is why UDScott reverted the signing). But the last is considered vote forgery, as it is a single username trying to make two apparently different votes. We require that users add signatures to their votes to show awareness of the process (which is described at the top of this page), and to help sysops to determine good-faith voting. But any Wikiquotian can observe the actual edits, including forged votes, by examining the page history. This behavior will likely get votes from participating users discounted, and may result in blocking if such bad-faith editing continues. IP addresses cannot register multiple legal votes, regardless of how many people they represent. Furthermore, we don't usually give much (if any) credit to users who only register to vote for articles, or IPs whose only contributions are to an article and its VfD entry. Wikiquote is a serious compendium of quotes from notable people and creative works, not a popularity contest to support quotes from ordinary individuals, however profound their statements or respected they may be by their followers. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • To be honest with you... That is kind of stupid. You consider people notable only through Google searches and all that stuff. It seems you have no respect for uprising notable people. I hate people like that. Someone can be notable in one area, a region that not many have heard of and if someone would try to put that persons quotes on here you would immediatly deem them not notable. Google searches are a bad way to see if people are notable because some people don't let stuff about them go near search engines... Some people like to be unknown in some ways. I personal consider a notable person someone who defies what people say. Someone should be notable if they were told they couldn't do something and they go and do it. Like helping others or setting up homeless help programs even though people said noone would care and it would be a waste of time. Notability should not be just by how many google hits you get and how many are actually that person but on what they did and plan to do with their future. But what I say has no importance seeing how I am, according to you, not notable. I only put my quotes on here because I used them in situations were most people who have freaked out and said or did nothing. I have prevented people from killing themselves. If you call that not notable then you people are really sad. I really wonder what has truely happened to this world. Just because of this whole thing, I think I'll make my current website a quote website donated to the people who weren't notable enough for you people. Auraschild 00:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Auraschild, Wikiquote is a publication of the Wikimedia Foundation, and as such must follow its principles. Like any other publisher, it is entitled to define what content it should incorporate, and what it does not wish to have. Many people make the mistake of thinking that being able to edit a website entitles them to add anything they wish to that website. But the Foundations's goal (as far as I understand it) is to create publications worthy of the respect given formal print publications, but which are composed by anyone and everyone who wishes to contribute. That does not mean we editors can ignore its standards. You also confuse subject notability with editor notability. It doesn't matter that you or I are unnotable. (I don't know about you, but I am certainly unnotable, which is why I don't have a quote article, just a user page like any other registered user, yourself included.) Anybody can edit here, but Wikiquote, like Bartlett's Famous Quotations or The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, requires that its subjects be notable and their sources be reliable. I wish you luck with your own website; I have no doubt that many folks who wouldn't be included in Wikiquote might very well achieve a useful web presence in your and others' sites, with their own standards of inclusion and exclusion. Vive le difference! Vive la variété! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Another thing. Notability differs alot. I could see Wilhelm Stekel as notable yet some other person (forsay my friend JJ) could see him as just a lunatic. Words and meanings and notability differ from person to person. The whole world could see someone as notable and yet the mediawiki thing could easily say they weren't. I respect that in a small way but I also think that the minorities should have a chance in the world. If all we did was allow the current notable people in wolrd to do anything, then we wouldn't be letting anyone else get into the notable category which you people place. Such things are stupid and remind me of a mere child. I've worked my whole life to stop homelessness and world hunger but because noone knows it I am deemed unnotable and disgarded as a normal average person. But I am a respectful person and I will respect this notable policy thing. "The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of a mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one." I based my life on this quote from Wilhelm Stekel. Like I said (or think I said) I do not want to be known much, I just want people to know my words, the words that have helped many people. And why do you let people vote if it should be deleted or not? All in all it is not notable and will probably be deleted anyways, what is the point? I don't know why I say anything. My words to you are unnotable and that of an average person. (I am saying this next part only out of curiosity, though it is true) Would I be notable If I told you I have won 5 awards for my poetry and had my poetry featured in two different books? Auraschild 01:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I find it hard to imagine a situation where "the world world [sees] someone as notable" and yet an entry for them here was deleted. Certainly it is possible to portray nearly anyone as a non-notable figure, and while there is no absolute standard for what constitutes notability, Wikiquote (as with Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects) generally operates on consensus. If a clear enough majority of people feel that a person is not notable enough to merit a page, then the likely result is that it will be deleted. There isn't some secret cabal that schemes to keep certain people from having pages here; the entire process is transparent and open to all. As far as your winning awards and having poetry published, that alone does not necessarily make you notable. There are many, many, many "awards" out there that serve only to earn money for a person or company through entry fees or payment for inclusion in a book of some sort. Most of these awards don't confer any real status on the person winning them; they don't become well-known in literature circles or anything like that. The same holds true for publication. Merely having a work published does not establish notability; the work has to achieve some measurable success in a large area/region. —LrdChaos 03:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Let's not get too sidetracked about the term "notability", which as everyone is pointing out is ambiguous. The way to convince Wikiquotians who are unaware of a person is to cite published information about the subject. As yet, not one shred of such info has been provided for Shawn Triscari, the subject of this VfD. If George W. Bush, who is inarguably notable, made a personal appeal for Mr. Triscari, it would be completely irrelevant. It's the subject, not the editor, who is the question here, and the evidence needs to be something that other Wikiquotians can investigate. Google, Alexa, the Library of Congress, Amazon, etc., are all just convenient means to the end of scaring up hard data on a subject. Since Mr. Triscari is apparently active in Cleveland, Ohio, citing articles from the The Plain Dealer would be one way to provide the requested evidence. I'm sure there are many other potential sources; it's a question of whether this person has appeared in any of them. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Okay, tell me this, how can I prove I am notable enough for you people? I'm surprised anyone is even on here. (Though it is irrelevant I would never let Bush make an appeal for me.) But I am being serious, how can I prove I am notable. I have never let anything been written about me because I refuse to be known. I live life for other people not for popularity, not for being known. Which brings up something else for me. If someone never let themselves get published in anything how can they prove they are notable. And I was in the Plain Dealer (and the soem west side newpaper and I think the sun newspaper) a couple weeks ago as a matter of fact, and on Channel 5 news, and 3 and 8 and 19 and 43. But that's irrelevant to this. And I will not provide links to any article because I am not going to resort to anything by the media to prove/say I am notable. (And mostly because I am going to e-mail them to ask them to delete the article.) Auraschild 03:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • There are literally no more common practices for scam artists to delude people than by making assertions and then trying to confuse skeptics by claiming absurd altruistic reasons for avoid publicity and painting themselves as victims. The claim of this user about "refus[ing] to be known" are patently false, as he is working very hard to be known here. The idea that citing evidence is irrelevant is absolutely wrong, as this is the only relevant issue here. Note also how Auraschild mentions several major media outlets but fails to provide any details (program names, article titles, dates, links), and even foolishly talks about having a paper delete an article. At this point, further discussion with this soi-disant "respectful person" who calls his fellow editors "stupid" is merely feeding the trolls. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • How many times do I have to say it?! I am only doing it on here so peopel can see my quotes! I don't care about me or anything. You want to see apart of teh article? The article heading was Students Urging Voters To Pass Levy Next Month and was POSTED on channel 5 news website at: 5:23 pm EDT April 6, 2006. (Was also featured on 10 O'clock news, 5 O'clock news and I think maybe the morning news of the next day.) You people are really shallow and ignorant. And is there anything wrong with wanting to work in the shadows? I refuse to be known because unlike most people I hate being known, I would hate my life if everytime I saw someone they knew my name and wanted to talk and because it is stupid to be popular. You rise and you fall. Why rise and fall when you can always stay in the middle? Though even if you want to stay in the middle you will always have minor rises and falls. I would never do anything for popularity or for money. I just want the world to be a better place. Say I am lieing, say i am full of it, say I want popularity, I DO NOT CARE! Because I know the truth, I know what I want. Another reason I didn't want to provide any media info was because I dislike the media. They side with the authorities and proclaim their righteousness. Auraschild 05:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Another thing. If I really wanted to be known you'd see more things with me in it if you searched me on Yahoo or Google. And you think I am trolling? (not that I really understand it) Sheesh, I was hoping at least one person would understand my intentions. And the only reason I am working hard here is becuase I hope someone comes across this and learns to stand up for themselves and defy the odds. Trust me I have thought about deleting all my qoutes that I have on here and just moving them to my website but I believe in fighting for what you believe in and that's what I am doing now. Fighting for what I believe in. Auraschild 05:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • So if you think that standing up for what you believe in is wrong, you people have serious issues! Oh and if you wish to have your quotes seen (directs towards minorities and non-notable people you can have them on my website! Go to http://www.eshemaunited.com/signup.htm Auraschild 16:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.47.10.135 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.0.198.180 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Please Do Not Delete 156.63.190.132 15:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to make it clear that I had no intentions of annoying anyone. My intentions were for the best. I never insulted anyone! I am outraged that you accuse me of that! And, I never meant for any of this to happen, all I have to say is I am sorry for the way this all turned out and I am sorry for wasting your time. Deleting the Shawn Triscari article will only be for the best. Now I only ask for forgiveness. If you could at least grant me that. Auraschild 19:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am going to be the bigger man here and delete the quotes I had on here. Auraschild 19:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am guessing I am not allowed to do that either... Auraschild 21:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikiquote policy (for everyone) is to leave VfD-nominated articles in place, allowing changes to attempt to make the article conform to policy (like reducing POV or adding sources or details) for a minimum of two weeks. Blanking articles is only done when the content is likely a copyright violation or libelous, but even then the original content is available through page history. It is a practice on Wikipedia that article creators may ask that their articles be speedy-deleted, but we are still working to catch up to WP's SD practices. Sysops are just as bound by WQ policy as any editor, more so in some ways. It may seem odd to some, but we have had articles that other editors rescued from deletion requests by their original editors. (See Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Neglected Mario Characters as the most recent example, and some explanation why this happens on occasion.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh and the IP 156.63.190.132 is my schools IP address. I was talking to you people from the schools comp and must have forgotten to delete the history and they came across it. Auraschild 23:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Shadows notebook:) (This is not the WikiUser Shadow)

Shawn is a notable person. The definition of notable refers to any person who has done something signifigant with thier lives. Because of the fact that everyones view of "signifigance" is relative, you can not say her is not a signifigant person. I will attest to his importance by saying that without him, many people have a high chance of being dead right now. This possible total is higher than a minor terroristic attack. Shawn Triscari has saved doesens of people, mabie even over 50. I can verify at least 5 of them for him. By denying him the privilage of being a "notable person," you are, in essence, placing him below the rank of a minimal terrorist. Doesn't he reserve the right to retain his dignity as a human? Are you persecuting this man because his views are different from yours? Your site is large, wikipedia staff. Let this man have his dignity and respect, and treat him not as a patron, but as an equal.... E-mail Shadow at Shadow_Zero_2000@hotmail.com (end of transcript) The above was a note from a friend, he originally placed it on the Shawn triscari page itself, but it was removed and I was told to move it here. It is also on the Talk:Shawn triscari Page. Thank you, Your friend, Shawn Auraschild (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I actually had to use these today, a friend was contemplating suicide and ways to change her life. Sorry, I just thought I'd mention it. Auraschild 22:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I find it an abomination that anyone would use the suicidal feelings of others to promote their own notoriety. Perhaps, to provide the requested evidence of notability, the Friends of Shawn Triscari (FoST) might interest The Plain Dealer in a story about how a shameless, self-involved young man spends most of his day trying to convince people that he is important, completely forgetting that the true importance comes from the effort itself, not the publicity. This is the most disgraceful act of self-promotion I've ever seen on a wiki project. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hey... I... I didn't mean to self promote... I just.. really got caught up in it and I just wanted people t... It doesn't matter, "To you, everything thats going on in the world looks phoney, to be something other than it is, right?" (From Catcher in the Rye I think.. One of J.D. Salinger's works... I don't think it was The Laughing Man {I think both are good and are good reading as well}) But I guess in this case the quote should be "To you, everything that I do in the world looks phoney, to be something other than it is, right?" I am sorry, and I mean that.. I... I really do! Auraschild 01:11, 12 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 15:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sheng Long

edit

No quotes, just discussion probably belonging in wikipedia. MosheZadka 08:28, 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: deleted. ~ Kalki

Shkodër

edit

Shkodër - Some German(?) words, just three of them. - user:zanimum

(nomination timestamp 16:36, 21 November 2003 (UTC), added by Jeff Q (talk) 03:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Delete. Angela 04:30, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
These might be Albanian, and a motto or something… but if no one can provide a translation for them in the next month or so, I will delete them. — Kalki 20:51, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I did manage to do a translation of these with an Albanian English translation site: "kohë është flori" means roughly : "Time is gold" or "Time is golden" — they thus might be compared to the English proverb "Time is Money" or a more general assertion "Time is precious" and "Time is valuable." Shkodër is a city in Albania, and by the formatting used on the Albanian proverbs page, this might indicate where the proverb is presumed to have originated, or be generally used. I will probably delete this page eventually as superfluous but see no special hurry in doing so. I will try to find someone who understands Albanian to confirm or reject my assessment, and help in proper placement of the phrase. — Kalki 23:22, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
You're right. It roughly translates to Time is money. Dori 23:21, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This was deleted The proverb that was there is now on the Albanian proverbs 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: Deleted. — Jeffq 04:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sholey

edit

This appears to be a film stub with three translated Hindi(?) quotes, but no such film shows up at IMDb. There is a similar title listed there, Aaj Ke Sholey (1985), but the listed characters don't match, and the IMDb page has no quotes to cross-check. The editor(s) have provided no context to allow us to verify that this film exists. I've asked the editor(s) to provide some information to supercede this deletion request, but if they don't respond, it should probably go. — Jeff Q (talk) 19:09, 20 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 12:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouji Gato and Full Metal Panic!

edit

No quotes. (If an article with quotes is made, consider merging the author and the work.) - InvisibleSun 21:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (four votes to delete, no dissent). —LrdChaos 12:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the manga unless quotes added; delete the author unless it's shown that his article could ever be more than just a copy of the manga article. I favor the manga over the man in this case for two reasons. First, we currently seem to be collecting a broad base of comics articles, but not comics authors. Second, while wikipedia:Full Metal Panic! is substantial, wikipedia:Shouji Gatou (note the correct spelling, different from our article) is little more than a list article which strongly suggests that Full Metal Panic! is his sole notable work (however many forms it takes). I have also left a message for our overenthusiastic manga article creator, Animeluver (talk · contributions), asking them to please hold off creating articles until they actually have quotes for them. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 121a0012 21:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, concur with Jeff. ~ UDScott 13:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Gato Shoji is not a comic author, but novelist (so-called "light novel" in Japanese) for young adult. It is true Full Metal Panic! (in progress, over 10 volumns now?) is his sole notable work. I don't know however how his works are known in English speaking world. --Aphaia 05:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not familiar with FMP!, but I sense a Japanese version of the "comic book vs. graphic novel" argument here. In English, the word "novel" (as a noun) is usually reserved for books that are almost all text, at most only incidentally illustrated. "Comic books" are stories told primarily through illustration. (Confusingly, they are not books, but magazines, and frequently have little or nothing to do with "comedy" — an unfortunate demonstration of language drift.) The term "graphic novel", which does serve as a more descriptive term, seems mostly an attempt by the comic book industry to gain more respect for comic book collections printed in book form; they are still told primarily through illustration. Our FMP! article refers to the series as "manga", which the WP article defines briefly as "comics and print cartoons". WP's FMP! article, in my quick reading, doesn't make clear whether the book part of the series is mostly text or mostly illustration. All this, of course, is irrelevant to the keep-or-delete debate, but I'd like to know which side of this divide Gatou's work falls on. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, as neither page has any quotes. —LrdChaos 14:32, 13 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. ~ UDScott 14:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shuvo Bakar

edit

Quotationless vanity ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:39, 12 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 (Talk) 13:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Sunnebeam

edit

Request for help, no quotes. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 13:46 (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 23:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sim Zhi Min

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 12:07, 24 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 03:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire

edit

A page created for a single episode of The Simpsons, with no quotes. —LrdChaos 15:18, 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.

Sister Sherri

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

SMTP

edit

Large "quotes" from RFC. Useless. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 00:00, 23 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 16:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Song of Songs

edit

This is nothing more than a page for someone's comments on a text. - InvisibleSun 14:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closed. Result: delete (5 deletes, incl. 1 implicit; 1 redirect). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect - While it is a very notable literary work, there is already an article with quotes from the Bible, so make into a redirect to The Bible. Koweja 15:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone turns the page into quotes about the book and not just someone's synopsis of it. —LrdChaos 16:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 121a0012 03:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Concur with LrdChaos. I'd rather not establish a precedent for creating a spate of redirects for Biblical books to The Bible, especially since there may be other notable works that use those titles. If we delete this article and someone enters "song of songs" in the Search box, it should list The Bible among its discoveries. If someone were to make a concerted effort to create separate articles for the individual books, we might need to revisit the issue, but until then, I'd prefer to leave these titles open for other things. Either way, commentary is definitely not the province of WQ, and original research and opinion doesn't even belong in Wikipedia. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 19:18, 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: delete. — Jeffq 15:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie (Sixth Former)

edit

Non-notable student. —LrdChaos 13:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (4 Deletes; 1 Keep & 1 half-hearted implicit keep, both from purveyors of other vanity articles about admitted acquaintances w/o notability evidence). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. —LrdChaos 13:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This looks like yet another vanity article, this one created by User:Gary Kirk, who has already shown his desire to flout notability guidelines in supporting verified and admitted vanity articles (Eddie's Stories, Get ahht). The content of this article, together with the edit summary "lol" (laughing out loud) in its creation, doesn't suggest a serious interest in contributing useful material. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I say Jefferty and you other chaps, I only put lol as that is one of our Sophie's catchphrases! (I used to love Catchphrase - didn't you?) I mean, the Kill Bill 2 was legendary! Anyway, I would compare S (SF) to brilliant articles like Hannah Richardson as high quality quotes written with love and carefully transcribed by editors who happened to hear them! Gary Kirk 19:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gary, you might want to avoid pointing to other articles that are up for deletion as evidence of similar pages that already exist. Yes, there is a similar page on Wikiquote, but it's also up for deletion, and with the current consensus in favor of deletion of that article, it doesn't really help your case for keeping this article. —LrdChaos 20:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...I voted keep on that quote too. I think I shall create a "move to the Amusement Wiki template soon. (It's down atm, hopefully back Thurs :D roflmao Gary Kirk 20:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jeffalonius Q, I must protest, for the quote in question, the girl honestly did say "lol". Also, when unable to read 'Kill Bill - Room 101', she pondered aloud "Why does it say 'laugh out loud' on the board..." leading to several witticisms such as "Pai Mei may not reply because his or her status is set to Be Right Back.". Jeffititus Q, you are a rapscallion and a spoilsport, but quite cool really, and if anyone should debunk Gary Kirk's inspirational albeit foolish articles, I am glad it is you. Hoorah for Jeffalongo Q! Horatio Apple 20:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 13:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Jeff. SorryGuy 00:04, 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. — LrdChaos 15:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer brisson

edit

Notability not demonstrated. - InvisibleSun 03:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closed. Result: delete (eight votes to delete, no dissent). —LrdChaos 15:31, 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: deleted. — Jeffq 07:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Status Quo

edit

This new article's sole quote is the title of "The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades", their 1996 cover of Timbuk 3's 1986 Billboard #19 pop hit. Timbuk 3's founders are Barbara and Pat McDonald, the latter of whom is credited on All-Music Guide as author. Status Quo has apparently been around a long time, but if their only notable quote is from a song they didn't even write (and which was vastly better known in its original form), I don't see what's left to include in the article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:18, 17 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. — MosheZadka 01:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Roberts

edit

No intro, no wp article. Google hits are personal geocities site and various free-for-all quote collections. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 19:26 (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 20:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve McKnight

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 14:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; 1 Keep by user whose only edits are votes to keep this and David Bradley; none of the claimed books, newspaper columns, or TV shows were in any way identified to allow verification). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless evidence of notability is provided. ~ UDScott 14:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Concur with UDScott. This and David Bradley appear to be disguised advertising for their real-estate firm. I've removed the commercial link they included in their articles. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Steve McKnight and David Bradley have a real estate education business in Australia. I created both articles. I am NOT associated with their organisation. They are well-known in Australia as a source of rational real estate advice through books and seminars. Steve McKnight's books are best-sellers. Non-Australians might not know them, but many Australians do. Steve writes newspaper columns and has been on television programs (NOT infomercials) several times. Andrew8 00:54, 28 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 13:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Kippel

edit

No obvious notability. Single quote from a web-board. (What is local philanthropist? Gives 10$ to charity?) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:53, 15 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 14:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Plaut

edit

Since Plaut is merely the subject of the quote, this page should actually be moved to Michael Banks; but the question is whether we should keep this page at all. Steven Plaut is someone of note, as described in the Wikipedia article. I cannot, however, find Banks and his Western View on a Google search. Since Banks is the source of the quote, his lack of notability would argue for the page's deletion. - InvisibleSun 02:24, 11 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 16:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Robinson

edit

No intro, google points to other people (distinguished by date of birth), few 17yos are notable. Suspected vanity. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 00:21, 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 15:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stpehen McLarnon

edit

Notability not demonstrated. - InvisibleSun 11:39, 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 05:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart West

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 12:51, 10 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. — Jeff Q (talk) 04:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Student self-governance, Woo!

edit

The only Google search result for the quote is a page from The University of Virginia's independent school paper, Cavalier Daily. A merely insider-oriented local item, without notability. - InvisibleSun 04:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closed. Result: delete (5 deletes, incl. 1 implicit; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:12, 16 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 7 July 2005 08:48 (UTC)

Styx

edit

No quotes, just some encyclopedic stub. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 08:48 (UTC)

  • Vote closed: Result: delete (3 deletes, no dissent)
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 08:48 (UTC)
  • Delete unless any quote would be added. --Aphaia 7 July 2005 11:18 (UTC)
  • Delete. Charon, Minotaur, and Styx are more articles created because someone wanted to fix red WQ links with encyclopedia articles. In these cases, however, they came from "en:" Wikipedia links that now point to WQ. I've fixed these links in their link-source article, Max Payne. — Jeff Q (talk) 23:18, 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: Deleted. — Jeffq 03:53, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Super Nintendo

edit
  • A page for a one-time Simpson's quote. Rmhermen 00:11, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • VOTE CLOSED. Results: Deleted (2 Deletes, 1 implicit Delete, no dissent). Sole existing quote already confirmed on Simpsons page. — Jeff Q (talk) 03:53, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Simpsons quote can go on its page. Other electronic game quotes should go into game pages. — Jeff Q (talk) 05:08, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Too wide. Already said by Jeff Q. --Aphaia 09:26, 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 17:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Susana Jean Bass

edit

Not notable, and appears to be nonsense. ~ UDScott 12:31, 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 00:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sven Mattson

edit

Another single-liner that I cannot verify. No Wikipedia page. Title is a normal Swedish name so I got many Google hits but nothing seemed relevant. Delete. jni June 27, 2005 12:57 (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 07:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sweat of the Damned

edit

This is a long excerpt from a copyrighted work, and even if it is not a copyvio, it should go into the appropriate work's page. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 8 July 2005 12:18 (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: delete. — MosheZadka 11:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SydLexia.com

edit
  • Vote closed: Result: delete (4 delete, 2 keeps - one from originator (who has a handful of the VfDed article and vote edits, and one from a user whose only edit was the vote, both keeps discounted as users with too few edits) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : Seems to be little more than a rather crude vanity page, and a bit spammy as well. ~ Achilles † 02:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity (web sites are almost never notable) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 02:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A group of site fans got together and compiled some of our favorite quotes from this site, which I have posted. After checking the Vanity rules and the What Wikiquote is Not pages, I have found that this particular WQ page falls under neither category. Therefore I am voting to keep, and furthermore propose that this vote is erroneous. Valdronius 06:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In general, fan compilations are fine: as long as the original is notable. You have not commented on the notability of the site itself. I strongly suggest giving some evidence regarding such notability, or else it is unlikely the page will be kept. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've tried looking through the giudelines for what constitutes notability, but as there is quite a bit of text, I can't seem to find it. So please allow me to ad lib. SydLexia.com is a review site of pop culture from 1980-1995. Topics discussed include Television, Movies, Video Games, Music, and Toys. It has garnered a fair bit of popularity on the web, and its current alexa rating is sitting somewhere near 65,000. Not too shabby IMO. Basically, its a funny site, and a great read for anyone who spent any time growing up in the aforementioned time period. So, if there's anything else that would help contribute to its notability, I'll be more than happy to bloviate some more. Valdronius 07:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for your questions and helpfulness. The general guideline is "if we don't have a WQ policy, we use WP policy if applicable". The relevant wikipedia (draft!) policy is at w:Wikipedia:Websites, which would be helpful (sorry for not making it more obvious earlier!). Also, please note that even if a web site is notable, comments of random forum members are still not notable: you would do well to edit the quotation page to have URLs marking each quotation for both verifiability and to be sure who the quotation is attributed to. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 08:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done and done. Thanks again for your patience with this particualr WQ newbie.
  • Comment: I've looked at the site's about page. If this article is kept at all, it should be a quote page for "Syd Lexia", the (pseudo-?)nym of the site's writer. However, I do think that not sufficient evidence has been produced for the person's notability: a site with Alexa rank of 65K is far from the guidelines presented in the draft mentioned above (it talks about 10K). Being funny and a great read is not relevant to notability: being published or otherwise "famous" is. Has the site (or the man behind it) been cited in any academic reviews of culture? Any newspapers? Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : Seems to be within the guidelines. Since WP all but begs users to create companion WQ entries for accepted articles, I don't see a problem regardless of notability. ~ FloydDoorz (Talk) 09:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be noted, probably, that w:User:Floyddoorz is the only editor in the page's history, with the exception of an application of an experimental deletion procedure and its reversion by an admin: see wp history. Usually a wikipedia article implies enough notability: however, this stub article has only one editor and has not been nominated for AfD, and so there is no relevant notability discussion. Also, as of now, the user above has no edits except for his vote. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This page doesn't appear to be a collection of anyone notable, but rather a string of quotes from a perhaps notable site. Whether or not the site is popular, the presented quotes are not from anyone notable enough to be included here. UDScott 12:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've created an AFD entry for the corresponding Wikipedia article in order to solicit opinions on its notability from the vastly larger audience there. Though we don't have to follow their ultimate decision, I think this will help inform our debate. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Fascinating issue... The w:Wikipedia:Websites page is interesting, and its talk page links - I didn't know the bash.org website mentioned there, it's great... Anyway, I'm not too sure about the argument that "Whether or not the site is popular, the presented quotes are not from anyone notable enough", because the same would also apply to Slashdot.org. Or perhaps we want to delete the slashdot.org wq page too? Note that there's a difference between a page that should be deleted on principle, and a page that needs a major rewrite because it's a mess. And as to whether this SydLexia website itself is notable enough, I guess it depends on whether we want to use the same guidelines as wikipedia, or stricter ones, or kinder ones... iddo999 13:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I pretty much hate the slashdot page. It is pure crap :( ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps we could use slashdot as a precedent for a page that is notable enough, suitable for wikipedia, but unsuitable for wikiquote? Or alternatively, require that the wq slashdot page contain only quotes by notable people? Or keep using the de facto option, meaning that if the subject itself is notable enough, then quotes by unnotable people related to it are ok? A lot of the info in the w:Slashdot subculture page may be of debatable importance, but if people seem to be interested in it, then fine... iddo999 15:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe the very concept of "precedent" is wrong here. Slashdot was never up for VfD. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 16:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Unlike SydLexia.com, which is debatable, Slashdot.com is obviously WP-worthy, because it's an extremely well-known website that has received considerable attention from the mainstream press. I don't think we have any clear rules about website quote articles, but Slashdot.org is a perfect example of why we need them. Unnotable people shouldn't be able to get around the notability policy just because they know how to post to a well-known site that'll accept anyone's commentary. By that rule, any "interesting" thing we post on Wikiquote should be fair game for a "Wikiquote" quote article. Come to think of it, maybe I'll start it and add my oh-so-clever personal quotes from my user page. (I hope everyone realizes I'm just kidding.) I repeat what I've said elsewhere, "interesting" is not a sufficient qualification for Wikiquote inclusion. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • The general question, related not only to a wikiquote websites policy, is whether the author of a quote must always be notable himself, or whether we may include quotes where the quote itself is defined as notable under some criteria, even though it's agreed that its author isn't notable. If the author must always be notable (except for quotes in user pages), then e.g. slashdot.org is beyond repair in it's current form, and probably should be deleted too. iddo999 21:04, 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: delete. — Jeffq 23:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Cook

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 20:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (4 Deletes; no properly registered dissent; 2 keeps from likely sockpuppet whose combined 3 edits were only for this article and this VfD entry; person never identified). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless evidence of notability is provided. I couldn't find anything on anyone notable by this name. ~ UDScott 20:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No deletion! I think Wikiquote should not delete this article! It is a great quote. If Wikiquote deleted this article, everyone would know that Wikiquote is a website that dosen't care how good the quote is, but how long the article is! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Socrates (talk • contribs) 21:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I reformatted the above posting after it was incorrectly created as a new article entry. Although it did not name the article it was intended for, I deduced it was for "Sydney Cook" because it is stylistically very similar to the subsequent incorrectly formatted vote (see below) and was recorded only minutes before that vote. These and the fact that this vote is the registered user's sole contribution to date (4 minutes after registering and 6 minutes before the anon vote) make me strongly suspect that this is the same person engaged in sockpuppetry, although perhaps without realizing it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not delete this article should not be deleted! it is deeply philosophical! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.57.116.217 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I reformatted the above posting after it was incorrectly created as a new article entry. Although it did not name the article it was intended for, I deduced it was for "Sydney Cook" because the unsigned IP user's only other contribution was to create this article. I could have just struck the vote, as it is each user's responsibility to read and follow the instructions to avoid having their unsigned votes struck, but the preceding similar vote from a registered user made me want to address the problem more comprehensively. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A search turns up a character named "Sydney Cook" from the TV show Walker, Texas Ranger, and so it's possible that the quote is from that character. I don't have any way to confirm this, however, and my gut feeling tells me that the quote is not from said character. —LrdChaos 14:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ~ Shadow 22:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. InvisibleSun 04:48, 17 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.

Deleted articles T-Z, non-latin characters

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. — Jeffq 05:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tanwani Anyangwe

edit

No WP article; Google presence suggests vanity article. Supported by the assertion that this person, nicknamed "WhichMan", is supposedly a software developer at "WhichMan, Inc.", and the editor creating this article (in their sole edit thus far) is Lewich. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:58, 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: Deleted. — Jeffq 15:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tender Crisp Bacon Cheddar Ranch

edit

Full lyrics, probably copyrighted, to an ad songs. It's possible some should be extracted into Advertising slogans.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thad Komorowski

edit

Not notable. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:42, 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: delete. — Jeffq 19:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Boogeyman

edit

No valid quotes. ~ UDScott 17:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; 1 unsigned anon vote struck; no other dissent; no improvement to article). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless valid quotes are added. ~ UDScott 17:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep need more quotes though...
  • Delete unless made into a proper stub article with appropriate references. If so, I would support a move to Marty Wright. Apparently, all that 169.244.143.115 has learned from our copious requests, pleas, and advice is that if he nominates one of his junk articles for deletion himself, other people will do his work by filling in the details, like I've just done for Fit Finlay and earlier did for Enya. Well, now that he's made me feel like a chump for letting him use me, I will no longer support his laziness. If the article creator doesn't care enough to make even a decent stub with a correct title, with information easily obtained from Wikipedia, I don't want to see the resulting garbage cluttering up our serious quote compendium. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:21, 23 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 08:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Clapper

edit

One quote without any kind of attribution or source information. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:03, 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 21:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Crystal Method

edit

No quotes. ~ UDScott 19:29, 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: delete. — MosheZadka 05:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Fox and the Hound Steal Money

edit

Wp article deleted, user tried to create one here. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:18, 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 08:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lion King 2: Simba's Pride

edit

No quotes. ~ UDScott 13:46, 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. — Aphaia 6 July 2005 08:04 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings (fandom)

edit

Fandom quote(s) from the Internet doesn't match our notability critelia. WQ:FAQ says such entries should be listed as "Anonymous" and I don't find any difference quotes from newsgroups and quotes from "the poster him or herself and friends". --Aphaia 22:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Vote closed: Result: Deleted (3 deletes, no dissent) --Aphaia 6 July 2005 08:04 (UTC)
  • Delete: --Aphaia 22:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Significant quotes would belong on the main article in the "Quotes about the" section but fandom isn't significant. Rmhermen 14:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and don't add them to any articles as "Anonymous". The FAQ has two unrelated answers about neighbor quotes and Internet quotes which should not be interpreted as giving people permission to add anything they find (or create) as "Anonymous" quotes. Proper "Anonymous" quotes are notable quotes that should stand the test of time, not just be from an unknown source. — 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 15:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mechanical Squirrel Army

edit

Not notable. While the game World of Warcraft may be played by plenty of people, the quotes shown here on this page are from non-notable people. It has no WP page and a Google search most prominently brings up the discussion board that these quotes are taken from. Perhaps they can be moved to a user page. ~ UDScott 12:30, 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: delete. — Jeffq 19:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Penultimate Peril

edit

No valid quotes. ~ UDScott 12:51, 17 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 00:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Prince of Poker

edit

This article screams vanity page. No WP article, incredibly vain prose, no sources, appears to be trying to capitalize on the fame of Scotty Nguyen, someone who has actually been called the "Prince of Poker" (by Poker News). ~ 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 (Talk) 05:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Shadow Walker

edit

Searches reveal several fairly unnotable people calling themselves that. Googling for quotes found them only on wq and mirrors (and sometimes unattributed in sigs). If the page is deleted, the quotes should be removed from all linking pages (and any pages that become quoteless by that should be speedied, as per policy). ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:50, 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. — MosheZadka 7 July 2005 14:32 (UTC)

The Sims

edit

No quotes. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 14:32 (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: deleted. — MosheZadka 13:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Sims 2

edit

No quotes ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 14:00 (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 16:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Success System That Never Fails

edit

No quotes. ~ UDScott 11:19, 13 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. — Jaxl 21:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The World After It Ends

edit

Not notable. No IMDb results, Wikipedia page, or relevant Google hits. —LrdChaos 03:24, 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: delete. — Jeffq 17:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore R. Long

edit

No quotes. ~ UDScott 12:41, 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.. — Aphaia 20:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas & Friends Go Wild!

edit

Seems to be another nonsense article, created by 67.160.58.132 during a string of nonsense edits. (I've SD'd some obvious nonsense in the Wikiquote: namespace during this spree — there are a couple of arguably useful edits — and blocked the IP address for a week.) The only Google hit was an apparent vandal edit to Wikipedia's Third Section article, which I'm looking into. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:08, 4 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. — MosheZadka 15:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Lorimer Morton

edit

No quotes, no established notability (and no wp article) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:23, 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: delete. — MosheZadka 22:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Morison

edit

An artist who seems to have been featured in two minor galleries (one of them "community center"), no wp article, google hits are about other same-named people and a couple of articles about PHP on a web forum. No obvious notability. No quotes have sources. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 08:27, 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: Deleted. — Aphaia 00:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Social Contract

edit

Was nominated but not listed for VfD. Article was apparently created as a JavaScript sandbox and abandoned. Someone later replaced it with a one-line statement about the work, but no quotes have been added after nearly five months. — Jeff Q (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Montgomery

edit

No quotes, possible hoax. ~ UDScott 12:49, 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. — Jeffq 12:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Murray

edit

Probable hoax based on: 1) the intro sentence; 2) the third quote; 3) the lack of results after doing a search on the quotes; 4) the lack of results after doing a search on the person as described; and 5) the history of the postings on this page. InvisibleSun 18:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It seems that, until a series of edits today by various users, this article appeared perfectly fine (i.e., all the hoaxy stuff was recently added). I cannot, however, find any evidence that this is a real person, and the only hits on the quotes are the WQ page. If someone can point me to a reliable source which can confirm that this is indeed a real person, I'll change my vote. —LrdChaos 18:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, concur with above. ~ UDScott 13:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless person identified and evidence of notability provided. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:06, 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 00:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Redmond

edit

No intro, not clear who this is. No wikipedia article. Google points to one, Tim Redmond, Bay Guardian Executive Editor. I am not sure if being executive editor of a newspaper is notable, but even if so, some kind of link between the person and the links should be established. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 18:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • VOTE closed: Result: Deleted. (3 deletes, no dissent). --Aphaia 00:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but significnat cleanup and clearing up could change my opinion ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 18:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've asked the anonymous editor who created this article to provide some info on who this is, so we can better judge if it should be kept. I've also added a close date two weeks from this posting to give them some time to respond. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: There is no information from the original contributor 65.204.229.11 (talk · contributions). I extended the vote for three days. Unless any information is provided, I incline to delete it. --Aphaia 9 July 2005 03:50 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided. It is incumbent upon the 3000+ editors of Wikiquote, not the 6 active sysops, to provide such evidence. — Jeff Q (talk) 21:59, 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. — MosheZadka 05:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Henderson

edit

No intro, no wp article, no sources for any of the quotes. There is a networking researcher by that name that Google points to, but I'm not sure that a) he is the one referenced or b) that he is notable. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:31, 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: kept. ~ Kalki 18:56, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tomb Raider

edit

The page was created 3 months ago and still has no content. -70.64.43.247 18:39, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As it is a fairly popular series, I think eventually quotes are likely here, and see no need to delete it. One problem that will probably arise is whether the pages for the games or the movies should be given priority for the "Tomb Raider" designation, or both eventually given names like Tomb Raider (games) and/or Tomb Raider (movies). ~ Kalki 18:56, 25 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. — MosheZadka 8 July 2005 05:28 (UTC)

Tommy Choy

edit

No intro, no wp, no quote sources, google points to a couple of community chess boards where he seems to be a decent, but average, chess player. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 8 July 2005 05:28 (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 09:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony ngyuen

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 20:05, 2 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 16:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Torquay

edit

No quotes, with text more suited for a wikipedia article. ~ UDScott 14:30, 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 16:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Transcendentalism - A New Revelation

edit

With a very liberal interpretation of the arguments that I presented in the section on Manuel de Castro, what appears to be the self promotions of Kurt Kawohl by creating his own article for quotations can be tolerated. However considering his own works as notable enough to be listed in the List of literary works is a step beyond, for which I feel I must definitely register disapproval. I did not delete this page immediately, but am posting it here for the consideration of others on the matter. ~ Kalki 18:56, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I prefer to delete it; or keep as a part of contents of his userpage. --Aphaia 23:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I must admit I'm a bit torn on this. The author is gifted at self-promotion, as evidenced by his self-quotes on this page and his chutzpah posting a review of his own book on Amazon.com. It flies in the face of Wiki practice against writing about oneself in article namespace. But he has apparently whipped up some notable controversy. Nevertheless, the self-referential content isn't worthy of a article. If someone other than the quotee feels any of these quotes are notable, I suggest they place them in an appropriate theme article. — Jeff Q (talk) 05:00, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Rmhermen 16:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: There is also a Kurt Kawohl page. Rmhermen 12:48, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. His selfpromotion has been deleted from Wikipedia also. jni 09:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Deleted--Aphaia 16:05, 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: Deleted. --Aphaia 16:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Transcendentalism Today

edit
  • A external link only page related to above vote. Rmhermen 16:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete In my humble opinion, a page with only external links, only categories or only interlang links, such things is appropriate to be speedy deletion candidates. --Aphaia 07:47, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. I believe Wikiquote would benefit from adopting the recently updated English Wikipedia speedy deletion rules, under which this would indeed be a speedy deletion candidate. jni 09:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Deleted--Aphaia 16:05, 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. — MosheZadka 10:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki:Men can do all things if they will

edit

This article was transwikied from Wikipedia, but as MosheZadka pointed out on its talk page, the quote it refers to (improperly used as the article title) was already listed in Leone Battista Alberti (by Pie4all88, 3 months before the WP article). Per our transwiki policy, I am nominating it for deletion. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:49, 10 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. — Jeffq 14:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trapped In The Looking Glass

edit

Could not find mention of this movie in IMDB or wikipedia -- not even when I looked in IMDB under the actors. It is probably a low-budget student movie, and much like college papers, should not be on WQ. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 19:31, 14 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: transwiki, then delete. — Jeffq 20:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trigun episode guide

edit

No quotes. ~ UDScott 18:13, 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. — Jeffq 23:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity

edit

No quotes. ~ UDScott 11:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes; no dissent; no quotes added, obviating other considerations). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless valid quotes are added. ~ UDScott 11:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless valid quotes are added. If so, I would recommend moving this to The Trinity or Holy Trinity to allow other uses of this term/name. (I am not an expert on this matter, so I welcome suggestions on this.) There are certainly plenty of sourceable quotes out there on this subject (and not just from The Bible); the question is whether anyone wants to find and add them. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete now since
    1. as Jeff Q said, the current lemma is questionable; it would be better to change to "The Trinity" or (the) "Holy Trinity" - perhaps the former would be more NPOV.
    2. there is only one sentence - as far as I know, it is an dictionary-type definition, not quote. Essjay - he is a theologitian, AFAIK - will be able to help us.
    I strongly say: any improvement is welcome - there are abundance of good quotations. The possible problem is if we accept the quotes which are related to this theme but don't content this concept as is - no bibrical text contains this term as we know well. And there are many Church Fathers' text arguing this theme but not using this word. --Aphaia 10:51, 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. — LrdChaos 13:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T.S. Boldy

edit

How do I doubt thee? Let me count the ways:

1) "A late 18th and early 19th century writer," which would make his dates 17??-182?, not 18??-192?.
2) The lack of search results involving name, titles, quotes.
3) The poet's initials. T.S. Who does that put that me in mind of? Oh, yes...
4) The phony Wikipedia link, which does not inspire confidence.
5) The various misspellings. Ditto.

I shall but love thee better after deletion. - InvisibleSun 20:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Mispellings and date errors due to the page being a work in progress -- this is really something you should pay attention to, if the page has only been up for five minutes, chances are someone is still working on it. However, after looking for citable (i.e. recently published or internet listed) information, I realized I may well be pretty much the only person that's ever seen any of this stuff, thus falling under the "new research" rule of most wikis. So, on principle, I concur. Go ahead and delete it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PlanetEric (talk • contribs) 21:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: The creator of the T.S. Boldly/Boldy page has deleted its previous contents. - InvisibleSun 21:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--PlanetEric 21:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Concur with this new witty nomination from InvisibleSun. (I'm still chuckling over Bob.) I hope PlanetEric isn't taking this the wrong way. He (?) seems to be accepting good-naturedly the need for notability on these Wikimedia projects. (It's not really "new research", which applies more to people adding original essays and opinions to encyclopedia articles.) But we do need to find reliable sources, even for quotes. I myself am curious where he is reading this author, if neither print nor web searches reveal any such sources. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 121a0012 04:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If an author is obscure enough that not a single reference can be found, it's a good bet they're not notable enough to be included. I'd welcome any evidence to the contrary, keeping in mind that merely having been published does not make a person notable. —LrdChaos 15:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 13:09, 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. — MosheZadka 14:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Turophile

edit

No quotes, no notability established. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:43, 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: delete. — Jeffq 08:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Silvestri

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 14:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (4 Deletes; no dissent). Anon did not request page move as suggested below. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 14:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. jni 07:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Concur with UDScott and jni, as this is almost certainly a vanity page. Seized by a sudden desire not to scare off too many vanity posters, I posted a note to the anon creator's talk page offering to move this to a user page if they register. I guess I'm hoping this person might consider creating notable-quote articles as well. (It'd be nice to be able to do this each time, but the return on the time investment in this kind of communication would probably be near zero, and I'd much rather spend my time welcoming new registered users with our collection of useful starting links, in an effort to reduce frequent misunderstandings.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per above. It might be nice to work on a template for putting on anon. users' talk pages when they create vanity (user) pages; it would certainly make it easier to get that message. out. —LrdChaos 02:24, 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: Deleted. --Aphaia 18:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ujeev

edit

Seems vanity. As a person's name, only this site and mirrors are available. And contents seem nonsense. I doubt it is worthy to keep even as anonymous quotes. --Aphaia 14:35, 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: Deleted. --Aphaia 22:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Uncle Nagy's House, Alayna Rakes

edit

Likely vanity pages from Ken Mickles, producer and of and actor in a web-only sitcom (apparently still under development) that is so un-notable that only gets 15 Google hits on 4 interrelated websites. (See this cached Google page for instructive details not available on the current site cited in the show article.) It looks like Mr. Mickles is trying to use Wikiquote to promote his project. UNH is the program, referred to by its creator as "probably the greatest achievement of mankind thus far". Ms. Rakes is a beauty pageant contestant who has an acting role in the program, with only 29 Google hits from 9 websites, including UNH's. UNH has one incredibly inane quote; AR has what appears to be a personal love note to Ken (not to his character). This is wrong for Wikiquote on so many levels. — Jeff Q (talk) 08:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • VOTE CLOSED: Deleted. (3 deletes, no dissent). --Aphaia 22:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. — Jeff Q (talk) 08:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Aphaia 16:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Mr. Mickles 22:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) Jeff - left a note on your talk page
  • Comment: I received a polite and humorous note from Kenmickles, who has voted to delete his own new articles above. Would that we had such cooperation from others creating articles that fall outside Wikiquote practices! But self-promotion aside, I must admit his program raises an issue that we'll have to deal with sooner or later — the growing existence of popular but web-only multimedia. The speedy-deleted "You Kicked My Dog" web comic had more notability than UNH but was still probably well under our radar. But if someone decides to add quotes from TROOPS, a wildly popular Star Wars-based spoof of COPS, which has only been released as a web-based movie, we'll be hard-pressed to define how such an article would be categorized, nor could we delete it for being unnotable. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:10, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Trust me, Jeff, you are just an idiot for not getting the potential greatness of UNH, nothing more. Really, have you even looked at one episode and tried understanding or what? Even over here in Amsterdam (NL, Europe) we laugh our asses of about this show! Didn't know rating was related to google hits, I mean, man that's pretty pathetic! 195.64.95.116 01:40, 15 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 18:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University of Texas at Austin

edit

None of the quotes are about the university; instead, they seem to be quotes from alumni of the university (or were said during a speech at the university). This would be best done as a category, if it should be done at all. —LrdChaos 15:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the entire point of the Cronkite quote is the University. It is an advertisement for the university recorded by Walter Cronkite. The Kennedy point has been trimmed to be just the portion that references the university. Johntex 01:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless quotes (preferably sourced) about the university are included. Theme articles are not intended to include quotes that merely mention the subject in passing, as in the Kennedy quote. If that were the case, Christianity could be filled with quotes that merely include the phrase "good Christian". They are supposed to be fundamentally about the theme. And advertisements are not suitable material for Wikiquote. (Advertising slogans includes concise commercial lines, but not testimonials like Cronkite's.) That said, I believe this article has potential. For example, the single phrase "Hook 'em Horns", cited with a source (like the university website, or better yet, one of the many provided by the WP article on this phrase), would make a valid, sourced quote entry. (It's a start, at least.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:51, 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: delete. — MosheZadka 05:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Urdu proverbs

edit

None of the proverbs has either an original script (Urdu uses what looks to be a variant on the Arabic script -- I could at least make out the word "Urdu" in the wp links), a literal translation or the colloquial meaning. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:25, 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: deleted. — Jeffq 17:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Variations of I stretched my rectum

edit

Worthless shock "quotes" without source. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:38, 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. — LrdChaos 20:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vectorman, Vector Man and Vector-Man

edit

At this time, these pages are identical. The pages seem to be intended to be quotes from the videogame Vectorman, which has a decent Wikipedia page, but none of the quotes on the page are remotely memorable or worth including (granted, including lots of non-memorable quotes is a problem for many of the other video game pages here as well, but those usually just need to have those trimmed out, leaving the quotes that are unique to the game). —LrdChaos 14:30, 7 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 15:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vice President

edit

One quote from a news service that could just move to the utterer. Doesn't seem an important enough theme. MosheZadka 11:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed. Result: Deleted (3 Deletes; no dissent; single quote copied to John McCain). — Jeff Q (talk) 15:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete MosheZadka 11:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article might be expanded with "Vice President" quotes, but its title and current content imply "U.S. Vice President", as opposed to other nations' vice presidents; corporate, NGO, or non-profit organization vice presidents; or any other vice presidents, for that matter. Easier to delete article with only 1 quote that already exists in John McCain than to hash out NPOV scope of "theme" article with no other quotes. Unless someone has a trove of VP quotes, I suggest putting any into Politics or other appropriate articles until enough VP quotes appear to justify a theme. — Jeff Q (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What JeffQ said. Sams 20:44, 27 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 00:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent I. Patino

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 12:31, 3 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 18:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vladislav Sukonnikov

edit

Vanity page for a non-notable subject. No results in a Google search on the name, and the Wikipedia page has been tagged for speedy deletion. —LrdChaos 17:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Update: The Wikipedia page has been speedy-deleted. —LrdChaos 17:25, 28 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 17:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waleed Shahid

edit

Not notable, and appears to be nonsense. ~ UDScott 12:33, 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: delete. — MosheZadka 22:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Waleed Tuffaha

edit

No intro, no wp, 1 google result from a "name database". Quotes look like vanity. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:06, 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 09:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Muncaster

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 18:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (4 Deletes; 2 Keeps; numerous unsigned anon and duplicate votes struck; no evidence provided of notability despite repeated requests). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless evidence of notability is presented. The only link shown on the page also appears to be spam. ~ UDScott 18:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Based on a heated discussion at w:Talk:IP address#External links again and a page from a site called GDSE (apparently a computer-game development site, but they seem to have left out the standard "who we are" and "contact us" links), this person seems to be an unnotable (and egregiously self-promoting) computer developer and artist. Since he seems to be a registered WQ user as well (User:0waldo), we could encourage him to join the rest of us unnotable editors and move this personal-quote page to his as-yet uncreated user page instead of having it deleted. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep it! I say keep it but then again, I'm partial to myself and all of my accomplishments in life. What is wrong with a heated discussion? Maybe we should all be limp, milk toast nerds - such a preferable model yes? JeffQ: I'm WAY more notable than you - think of me as your mentor. UDScott: The standard lame ass excuse around here 'spam' - grow up. 0waldo 00:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And where is your evidence of your notability, Walter? Anyone can say they're notable, but personal testimony isn't evidence. Prove me wrong and I'll change my mind (and my vote), as I have done in the past. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not here to prove that I'm 'notable'. Think about it. Someone says: hey dik, you're not notable, prove that you are to me... I'm not here to light my own fire or to blow into a vacuum. 0waldo 14:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Au contraire, mon ami. Your creation of a quote article about yourself is a de facto assertion that you are notable. MediaWiki Foundation projects were established to allow anyone with an Internet connection the ability to record encyclopedic, quotation, and other information about notable subjects. That is their purpose. They require evidence of the notability of their subjects, or the information is removed. If you do not understand this, you are missing the point of the projects. There are many other similar projects on the Internet that do provide a forum for people to write about themselves, regardless of their notability. This just isn't one of them. It's nothing personal, as your personal attacks against myself and others have been. There are editors here (not me) who have been written about in the established press, so they might be considered notable. If any should choose to create a quote article about themselves, their articles would still require evidence of notability. Of course, those editors typically have a long history of useful edits and follow Wikipedia civility guidelines, so they're less likely to have to do themselves, as other editors would probably help. You, on the other hand, have no history of edits other than those relating to your own cause, and seem to be going out of your way to insult the only people in the community who are interested in reviewing your article. To use your own oft-repeated phrase, spare me. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ~ Achilles † 16:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
cmd DELETE: "you" (along with your cardboard sword) :) 0waldo 16:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nonnotable self-promoter. jni 16:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • These quotations appear to be being made up on the spot, directly in Wikiquote. There is no evidence that these quotations, or indeed any quotations by this person, have been recorded (by anyone other than the subject xyrself) outside of Wikiquote. Delete. Uncle G 17:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So then, since you can't find your 'evidence' then reality with respect to the matter simply ceases to exist I suppose? Spare me. 0waldo 18:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure why I'm bothering, but I'll try to explain this as well. In general, we follow Wikipedia's practices about sources. Per w:Wikipedia:Citing sources#When you add content: "In general, even if you are writing from memory, you should actively search for authoritative references to cite." The burden of evidence is on the contributor, not on reviewers. (That, again, is how wikis work. Editors are expected to do their own research. They can leave the hard work to others, as often happens, but they must expect that it may not get done, leaving their contributions vulnerable to removal for being unsourced.) For notable quotees, citing publications of their works provides editors the ability to review and correct, enhancing Wikiquote's goal of accuracy. When editors review articles nominated for deletion, they often attempt to determine notability and find sources as a courtesy to the many editors who may not be familiar with WQ practices (which can be read starting with Wikiquote:FAQ and Help:Contents). But they are not required to do the research; the only people with that onus are the editors interested in keeping the article. In this case, that's you, 0waldo. Complaining about our inability to find your supposed quotes in any reliable source is, again, not helping your case. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • JeffQ:I love the dig on -spare me-. Cute and simultaneously good! That was good. Really good and I truly commend you 4it! I'm the dog with mange in the corner getting kicked around by the A.K.C.s 0waldo 01:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: I have removed 0waldo's attempt to stack the deck on this VfD entry by adding multiple unsigned votes. They may have been meant whimsically, but we take VfDs very seriously, while 0waldo seems to be treating his experiences with Wikiquote as an extended joke. I have posted a warning on his talk page about the potential for being blocked if he continues to violate multiple WQ policies. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jeff, Commendations! Clinically curt comments concerning cynicism communicated to crass commentators at “cut-waldo-up-corral”. Was clearly a clever conscript! Consider casa to be: “cadre of cranky commentators”, “clique community” consistently creating crap, croaking to collateral comrades at corral commuting censure. Communiqués of ‘civility’ / ‘clean communication’ cleverly commandeered from crummy editor’s “cardboard-sword” charisma: construing crusted creampuffs, au contraire, culinary clout consisting of clearly cheap con/come-on competition. Consequently, considering canonizing myself (if considered conceivable) thru copious coconscious-comments and/or “contrived illegal castings” to change the call of the crappy ‘clique community’ and/or ‘comrade-cowards’ from a “can him” to a “consecrate him” consortium to clearly contrive a “plus Ca change”. Since cancelled change is a not cannon to commiserate: I cleverly cleaved with a comely chick and consequently coined the capricious caption to close, calling closely the conspicuously callous comment to cite:
    “Milk-toast is for the mundane while gold coins are for the conquistadors”
    Carefully consider correlative commendable cliché creative coined by creditable concierge/cohort comely-chick-cleaver; calling on all “crass commentators”, “clique community”, “collateral comrades” for “conscription to canonization” on chapter
    “Walter Muncaster, Artist 1953-” contrary to: cross-out, cut, censor, cast out and/or continual commuted confusion.
    0waldo 17:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Jeff, look brother, I'm really sorry to do this but you need a legitimate reason to suspend my privileges and I'm going to give you one, right here, right now :)
    • Delete. Notorious gangster/thug.
    • Delete. Combination toaster and/or bent kitchen utensil! Delete him before he spreads butter all over the place!
    • Delete. Look can't somebody stop this communist sympathizer? Delete him, his uncle and aunt before they get a pen for GOD's sake!
    • Delete. He is just a total bum seeking notoriety, fortune and fame! AXE HIM!
    • Delete. Tom Petty: I say that he is "a rebel without a clue" delete him!
    • Delete. A sock puppet commandeer he is - get rid of him!
    • Delete. He's been huffing too much auto paint. put him out of his misery!
    OK, that should be enough reason to ban me!!! Seven illegally cast votes all in favor of keeping me none the less! Caught in the act of voting fraud! 0waldo 18:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Struck out all unsigned, undated votes from 0waldo, who has already voted and doesn't really seem to want to change his original Keep vote. Also partially granted his wish by blocking him for 1 week. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Keep Walter's page of quotes. SIGNED Joan Muncaster. ( please don't delete my vote again - I am entitled to vote ).
  • KEEP! KEEP! KEEP! KEEP! We have seen others' pages that could be deleted BUT NOT WALTER'S! And yes his quotes are notable! signed, Madeline, Sean, Phillip, and Rebecca Tatum.
    • Reformatted and struck more unsigned, undated anonymous votes. Please read the sections titled "Requesting deletions" and "Voting on deletions" at the top of this page for explanations of what constitutes a proper vote. (Please also note that the very first section instructs editors of this page to read this information before editing. There's only so much hand-holding other WQ editors can do for you.) None of these votes have been proper, which is why they have been and will continue to be struck. Repeated refusal to follow Wikiquote policy will result in temporary blocks. Collective attempts to use blocks of IP addresses to avoid blocking may result in a range block and a report to your Internet service provider. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maddy 13:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)I think Walter's page should be KEPT as I stated before. Personally I think his quotes are too notable for this penny anty site. And if one is to register then you should remove the sentence that it is not necessary to register at the top right hand part of the page on the login/register tab.It also appears to me that you have some personal agenda against Walter and that perhaps you are emasculated by him...just an observation.I guess you are going to revoke my hall pass now?[reply]
  • KEEP.JeffQ!!!
    I vote to keep myself! (I know, again, sorry but I can't help it!). While in exile, I spent much time reflecting and came up with this personal work of art, just for you - I sincerely hope you and the others like it as much as I do (this is just a small clip from the 1200x1200 pixel version I painted that took six hours)! 0waldo 17:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC) Remember! NO BALLOT STUFFING![reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wannes van Deursen and Van Deursen,Wannes

edit

Two (identical) pages that are almost certainly vanity: Google turns up no matches for the name, which happens to the same as the username that created the pages. —LrdChaos 15:53, 2 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: merged. — Rmhermen 16:09, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wanyes World Wanyes World Patry Tmie Exclleent

edit

Wanyes World is not only incorrectly spelled but includes quotes from the film seemingly at random. Correct page already exists or I would have moved it.-- keshiklabs 1:00 28 Sep 2004

NOTE: actual nomination time: 05:03, 28 September 2004 (UTC) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article should probably be merged with Wayne's World, then made into a redirect. I might get around to doing so in the next week or so, but its not a priority for me. ~ Kalki 17:03, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Page was merged. Rmhermen 16:09, 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: delete. — LrdChaos 14:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

West Side Story (Musical)

edit

This is a full-text copy of an entire script, as the creator admits in the intro paragraph. As WSS was first produced well after 1923, it is almost certainly a copyright violation to list its entire content on any Wikimedia Foundation project. Even if it is somehow in the public domain, it would belong on Wikisource. (And merely being posted on a website like aellea Classic Movie Scripts is not evidence of PD.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:55, 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 05:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What would you do if Jesus came to Hawthorn?

edit

No quotes. ~ UDScott 23:05, 8 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 15:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When it All Goes Wrong Again & Amir W. Khalifa

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. — Jeffq 04:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where the bloody hell are you?

edit

Another single-quote article from Down Under. If it can be sourced, it should go into an appropriate theme article. Wikiquote articles are for quote collections, not discussions of single quotations. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:18, 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: deleted.. — Aphaia 20:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

William M. "Morrie" Weeks

edit

No wp article, no obviously relevant hits of google, not sure why he is notable. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:54, 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) 09:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Word jokes on proverbs

edit

Patent nonsense, vandalism. I would have requested speedy deletion if the page didn't exist already for over half a year. Gpvos 19:29, 29 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: merge with Lyrics. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you die for me?

edit

Just a stubby set of lines apparently from the song "Join Me in Death" by Finnish alt-rock band HIM. Song articles don't work at Wikiquote because they can't ever be more than stubs without becoming copyvios or complete listings. This could be made a band stub for HIM, merged into Lyrics, or just deleted. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:33, 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 06:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yatin Mondkar

edit

No wikipedia article, no google search. Seems like a vanity page. MosheZadka 06:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Vote closed: deleted (1 delete, no dissent) Aphaia.
  • Delete MosheZadka 06:21, 8 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 04:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Submarine (animated movie/soundtrack)

edit

This article was apparently created before the editor realized we already had a Yellow Submarine. After I complete the merge in a few minutes, there will be no reason to keep this article, as its title is cumbersome and unlikely to be typed in by anyone, so even a redirect is unnecessary. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:55, 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: delete. — Jeffq 02:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Submarine Lyrics

edit

Complete list of lyrics, which is a blatant copyright violation. (I've blanked the article and added a history link to allow easy review.) Songs don't make reasonable WQ articles because they can't grow beyond stubs without being copyvios or Wikisource-bait. Excerpts from this song belong in Yellow Submarine (film article) and/or The Beatles. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:39, 17 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 19:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterdays Somebodies

edit

Not notable. ~ UDScott 11:47, 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: delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yo Momma

edit

Page appears to be copied wholesale from the Wikipedia page of the same title and has no quotes. —LrdChaos 16:39, 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 13:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot Poland

edit

This is a simple copy-and-paste from Wikipedia's You forgot Poland, not even bothering to include the heading markup (which accounts for some of the grammar problems). Since there's only a single quote (and incorrectly quoted at that), by definition it can't be expanded. The correct quote already exists in George W. Bush (along with a link to the WP article), so there's nothing left to do here but delete this article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Jeffq. —LrdChaos 19:42, 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: delete after various merges. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're either with us, or against us

edit

This page was transwiki's from Wikipedia earlier, but I don't think it's the style of page we want to have around here. As opposed to a collection of quotes from a person, or about a theme, it's quotes that resemble a different quote. —LrdChaos 18:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed. Result: delete after various merges (1 Delete; 2 Deletes after copy to quotees; 1 Keep accepting transfer to Logic). This is quite complicated, as User:^demon transwikied this and another article from Wikipedia without following any of the transwiki guidelines, and now we are left to do the job correctly. I will leave this article in place until I can do all the "paperwork", then delete it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everything has now been copied into appropriate articles as listed below (including a Star Wars quote I'd failed to notice before), the transwiki logged on both WP and WQ, and the transwikied article deleted. This was the most complicated transwiki I've ever done! Thanks goodness most are much easier. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. —LrdChaos 18:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after copying 3 of the 4 quotes to relevant articles (The Bible, George W. Bush). (If someone wants to create a stub article for Indiana governor Mitch Daniels, they're welcome to do so, but I feel certain we don't have the community interest in such an article, and the single quote isn't even sourced.) Writing an article on this topic is like looking through the wrong end of a telescope, either for Wikiquote or Wikipedia. In WP, quotes are used to illustrate a topic; they aren't topics themselves. In WQ, quotes are collected under a general topic, and variations are grouped into a single entry in a topic, not as a full-fledged article. Millions of people have used this concept, but it is absurdly impractical to collect all these instances, even just the ones we can find reliable sources for. What's important about the quotes themselves is the origin of the concept (traced back to the Bible in this article), and notable users because of the contexts (Bush and Daniels, for political purposes). If we're so inclined, we can create internal links from the latter-day instances back to the putative original to connect them, but we certainly don't want to encourage such ultra-specific theme articles. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, concur with the above. This seems much too specific for a theme. ~ UDScott 20:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perhaps rename to False dilemma logical fallacy - I agree it's rather absurdly specific, and yet I find it really, really interesting to be able to contrast the wide-ranging tenor of these quotes expressing the same idea. I can see how this kind of thing would be useful, and how pages like this could be indexed by categories for easy findability, and most importantly, how this would set Wikiquote apart from other quotation sources that focus on people or quotes featuring a specific word. BD2412 T 02:48, 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 20:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Miller

edit

No quotes, probably not notable either. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 16:03, 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 16:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Parker

edit

A search on this name yields many results, including a baseball player; but the quotes themselves yield no results. Delete unless more info provided. 16:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC) InvisibleSun

Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes; no dissent; person not identified). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:30, 3 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 06:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zak Strassberg

edit

Only claim to fame is apparently being an "awesome guy". ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:50, 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: Deleted. — Jeffq 08:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zalman Stern

edit
  • I can't establish whether this person is notable or simply a Wikiquote user. This page and a quote on his user page are User:MadUrban's only contributions. Rmhermen 13:17, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: Deleted (1 Delete; no dissent; 2 comment/question). Content merged with Computers. — Jeff Q (talk) 08:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment He seems to be a programmer or computer related person and perhaps identical with this Zalman Stern [68] [69] [70], but perhaps not the same with this person [71]. And I can't find he is an eminent person only in such communities or as famous as Linus Tobald or others. And here another problem arises; if those quotes can be attributed to him exactly or not. Then we can mail him and ask if he said those words really ... --Aphaia 09:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Stern is from Carnegie Mellon University's Information Technology Center and is published in computer science periodicals. (He probably is the Stern mentioned in Aphaia's Informatik link ([3] above), as it covers the CMU-based Andrew Filesystem.) However, it seems unlikely we'll ever see more than the 2 existing quotes added when the article was created in Nov 2003. I suggest moving those quotes to Computers and then deleting this article. I have also posted a message to MadUrban's Talk page to ask for counter-arguments. (He/she hasn't made any other contributions, but may still be a regular Wikiquote reader.) — Jeff Q (talk) 11:38, 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. — MosheZadka 07:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zoom

edit

No quotes, and hardly any useful content. It was created from the TV template, and I removed all boilerplate to showcase how it has very little information. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 08:11, 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, pending technical fix. ~ Kalki 14:57, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

首页

edit

Tag=ged on Dec 2004 but perhaps not listed here. 首页 means "Main page" in Chinese and it has almost no content. --Aphaia 06:19, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This was created by someone before the Wikiquotes in other languages had been started up, but technical problems with the software currently prevent its deletion. ~ Kalki 14:57, 27 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: Deleted. — Jeffq 06:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Пушкин, Александр Сергеевич

edit
  • Roboaction tagged this one a while ago but apparently didn't list it here. Even if translated this would have only two words. What is our policy on non-Roman alphabet titles? Rmhermen 23:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: Deleted (3 Deletes; 1 implicit Delete; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 06:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, currently. I think we have to have any article in latin alphabet for readability. As for policy on non-Roman alphabet titles, we have not yet, if I recall corretly. After setting more basic policies, we will discuss it someday not far. --Aphaia 06:26, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'd suggest making it a transwiki candidate to ru:Wikiquote, but I don't think it has enough content to be worth the trouble. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. BTW this means in cyrillic: Pushkin, Alexandr Sergeyevich. Probably we have another page on Pushin Deiryassin 14:26, 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: Deleted. — Jeffq 12:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

정신분석과 지그문트 프로이트

edit

Besides inapropriate name (in Korean), probably the whole copy of a certain webpage (see the last line of this page), hence strongly doubting as copyright infringemen. --Aphaia 08:30, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Vote closed. Result: Deleted (4 Deletes, 1 implicit Delete; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 12:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:50, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete speedily. --Eustace Tilley 11:18, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The original is here, the author explicitly reserves all rights, so I replaced the text with a properly cited link. --Eustace Tilley 11:40, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: currently Wikiquote policy doesn't include copyvio as a speedy deletion candidates, if I recall correctly. --Aphaia 12:47, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Similar fuzzy-logic problems use a point system. This page earns speedy delete points for
          • a title which displays as all question marks
          • an anonymous contributor
          • no comments by the contributor at the time of creation
          • no Wiki formatting
          • no link to the external source
          • no reference to the author
          • no credit to the author
          • no evidence that the lengthy work has ever been performed
          • violation of the observation of rights the author posted on her page
          That is enough merit a speedy exit, in my opinion.--Eustace Tilley 13:38, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • It is different if those articles could be speedy deletion candidate and if our policy says so currently. If you want to contitue the discussion on this point, please don't do it here but on WQ:VP. --Aphaia 15:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't see any utility for keeping this. jni 12:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. We need to formulate a copyright violation policy as well. Rmhermen 13:43, 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: delete. --Aphaia 00:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

鲁迅

edit

Non-English quote page that had been nominated for VfD but not listed here. I can't read it, but if it's useful, it might be transwikied. — Jeff Q (talk) 22:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • VOTE CLOSED: 2300, 3 May 2005 (UTC) 3 votes for deletion, one of them suggested merge. No one supported for keeping it. --Aphaia 00:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete: I checked it and related pages.
    • This is the same topic of Lu Xun, a Chinese novelist - very famous.
    • The correspond article on Zh WQ is zh:鲁迅 and its content is same with our [[鲁迅]].
      • So my proposal is 1) we merge it and ask Zh people to translate it or 2) just delete it and wait for Zh Wikiquoters who would like to expand it. If I recall correctly, I have already asked them once to save it on their VP but got no response. Their project is younger than ours and has less population, so I personally prefer the option 2). --Aphaia 01:26, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If they already have the content (for later translation when they have time), and we have no one to translate it, then I say delete unless they get around to it before the vote close date. — Jeff Q (talk) 01:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This serves no purpose here and is present where it is useful. Rmhermen 02:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Question: Does zh:WQ have the contents of Lu Xun, which is tagged to be merged with this article? If not, perhaps we should somehow provide them with Lu Xun's contents. — Jeff Q (talk) 05:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Reply: Lu Xun has a quote and it is listed on the 9th of zh article. --Aphaia 22:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Then I suggest that if this article is deleted, the merge tag be removed from Lu Xun. We might also consider it for deletion, as it contains only a single quote, but that is a separate issue. (I'd be inclined to leave it for future growth when the zh folks are ready to translate more.) — Jeff Q (talk) 08:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Deleted. --Aphaia 00:09, 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: delete. — Jeffq 21:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

خالد احمدي

edit

Neither the title nor any of its contents (except a reference to www.urmiye.org) is in English. I can't tell if the language is Arabic, Persian, or something else. I have no means to even attempt to translate a few words to provide an inkling of its title or content. With WHOIS not accessible at the moment, the best I can determine is that it has something to do with Kurdistan (note the Flag of Kurdistan at the site and the Kurdish region marked in the WP article) and/or Finland. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:40, 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.

Deleted pages

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 14:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1919 births

edit

I removed the one or two articles in this category because we don't have any sort of consistent or well-used plan for this. While it might be useful to, down the line, include some sort of categorization by year of birth/death, it should perhaps follow the standard for pre-2000 films, which are grouped by decade instead of by individual year. —LrdChaos 13:39, 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. — Jaxl 14:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1920 births

edit

I removed the one or two articles in this category because we don't have any sort of consistent or well-used plan for this. While it might be useful to, down the line, include some sort of categorization by year of birth/death, it should perhaps follow the standard for pre-2000 films, which are grouped by decade instead of by individual year. —LrdChaos 13:40, 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. — Jaxl 14:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1960 births

edit

I removed the one or two articles in this category because we don't have any sort of consistent or well-used plan for this. While it might be useful to, down the line, include some sort of categorization by year of birth/death, it should perhaps follow the standard for pre-2000 films, which are grouped by decade instead of by individual year. —LrdChaos 13:40, 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. — Jaxl 21:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1964 films

edit

This category is currently empty, and given the existence and use of Category:1960s films, should remain that way, and is therefore unnecessary. —LrdChaos 22:43, 22 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. — Jaxl 14:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1998 deaths

edit

I removed the one or two articles in this category because we don't have any sort of consistent or well-used plan for this. While it might be useful to, down the line, include some sort of categorization by year of birth/death, it should perhaps follow the standard for pre-2000 films, which are grouped by decade instead of by individual year. —LrdChaos 13:40, 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. — LrdChaos 23:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Actress

edit

This category is unnecessary, duplicating Category:Actors; it looks like the category was created with no meaningful content, which was blanked. There was one article in this category, which I've moved to the "Actors" category. —LrdChaos 13:26, 13 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.

Category:Amerindians

edit

See #Category:Native Americans.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Animation films

edit

This empty category duplicates the existing (and well-populated) Category:Animated films. I suspect its creator belatedly found the existing category and just moved the former's articles to the latter. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:15, 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: delete. — LrdChaos 23:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arts

edit

This is an empty category, and the text for it says to see Category:Art, which does have articles present, so this category is unnecessary. —LrdChaos 13:27, 13 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, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category:Britain, Prime Ministers

edit
  • Bad format. Category:British Prime Ministers is better. I already moved the one entry. Rmhermen 16:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: Deleted (3 Deletes, 1 implicit delete; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 20:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Thanks. I agree, also. Delete. Benn M 16:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jeff Q (talk) 10:54, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Aphaia 21:12, 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. — MosheZadka 07:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Commercials, Category:Quotes by nationality

edit

Unused categories. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:57, 31 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 05:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films in the People's Republic of China

edit

Nothing in it, and not seeing it as a useful subcategory. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed: Result: delete (2 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Based on its original inclusion of a tag for Category:Films in China, this category appears to be an attempt to differentiate PRC films from perhaps Taiwanese films; i.e., drawing a distinction between the popular concept of "China" and the multiple political entities that claim that name. I will annoyingly remind everyone that I had predicted this kind of contention over collections by geography or nationality. Get used to it; it'll only get worse. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • More reason to delete: It appears that this category is part of a initial effort by 142.166.198.170 and Gavinnauss (certainly the same person, given their brief edit histories) to categorize films both by setting and by "language" (presumably language spoken in the official release, not any after-market dubbing). This effort seems to have been inspired by only a single article, Kill Bill. The nine categories created under Films by setting and Films by language all ultimately point solely to KB, and this category under VfD was included as part of that flurry of categorizing activity. I seriously doubt that we have the community motivation to establish these two additional forms of film categorization at this time, just because one article (itself in unanswered need of cleanup) can benefit from the unusual inclusion of several of these categories. If we do vote to delete, we should also delete every one of these singleton categories. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:45, 31 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. — MosheZadka 6 July 2005 08:56 (UTC)

Category:Humanitarians

edit

Only one member (who is other, more objective, categories). Also, I don't believe it is the business of wikiquote to give out marks for good behaviours (let's just quote those who do!) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 6 July 2005 08:56 (UTC)

  • Vote closed: Result: deleted (2 deletes, no dissent). ~ MosheZadka 08:50, 21 July 2005 (added from history by Jeffq)
  • Delete: ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 6 July 2005 08:56 (UTC)
  • Comment: For your information the one under this category is categorized on Wikiquote as below:
Categories: 1914 births | Nobel Peace Prize winners |
Humanitarians | Norwegian-Americans | Biologists | 
Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients | People from Iowa
And I assume "humanitarians" is not "mark for good behaviours" but a sort of activists (but not so political) here ... --Aphaia 6 July 2005 10:10 (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 06:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:(Messiah)

edit

Unused inherently POV category ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:33, 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 16:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Natives of Cornwall

edit

This rather narrowly-defined category does not appear to be of much use. There is currently only one page in it and I can't imagine that we'd have too many others that would hail from this specific county in England. ~ UDScott 14:40, 17 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. — Jaxl 14:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by year

edit

I've nominated the four (empty) subcategories of this category for deletion; it contains no articles of its own. Until such time as a consistent policy for categorizing people pages in this manner, this category is largely unnecessary. —LrdChaos 13:43, 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: Deleted. — Jeffq 20:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category:People from Canada

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 20:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category:Prime Ministers of Britain

edit

Delete. Category made in error. Proper category is here. Benn M 16:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: Deleted (3 Deletes; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 20:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jeff Q (talk) 10:54, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, because categories can't moved, then create "Prime ministers of Britain"; I think it is not bad we have both category (alphabetical order) and list (perhaps chronological). --Aphaia 21:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Aphaia, does this mean you do not support the current, active Category:British Prime Ministers that Rmhermen mentions in the "Category:Britain, Prime Ministers" vote below? — Jeff Q (talk) 23:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: Well my rigid inclination to consistency says "Prime Ministers of Britain" is not appropriate like "Computer Scientists and others. But it is of course my personal feeling. Aph.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 6 July 2005 08:04 (UTC)

Category:Words

edit

Under Category:Fundamental but only contained only one word (I put it under "Themes"). It has not been used by any editors. In my opinion it is better for us to re-organize two category "Main Page" and "Fundamental"; Or at least put "Themes" under Fundamental too. --Aphaia 17:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Vote closed: Result: Deleted. (2 deletes, no dissent). --Aphaia 6 July 2005 08:04 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone can provide a compelling argument for how this category might be useful. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Aphaia 4 July 2005 06:45 (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 19:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Law

edit

Bunch of red links. While portals can be useful, I would appreciate some discussion as to how to best affect them, or at least some out-of-the-way experiments (user or wikiquote namespaces) before implemented. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:26, 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 02:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Frenetic Five/Alternative

edit

This experimental alternative page for Frenetic Five was nominated for speedy deletion because "main page already has that format", which I infer to mean that the tested format was transferred to the main article after it was agreed upon. However, it does not meet SD criteria. It is not a "test page" in the Wikipedia/Wikiquote sense of an inappropriate sandbox; it was apparently a community attempt to develop a consensus to change the format, and as such, should be handled by VfD when its purpose is done. (Personal subpages may be speedy-deleted, but not article subpages. Also, it's inappropriate to use the Talk: namespace for a full-blown test of an article; it should be a subpage of the article, and its talk page used to discuss the experiment. But that's another issue.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:10, 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: Deleted. — Jeffq 11:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Reirom

edit

Wikiquote is being trolled.--Eustace Tilley 10:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I've suggested to the folks who keep trying to resurrect the Reirom article (through fair means and foul) that they might have more luck with the Portugeuse Wikiquote/Wikipedia, as this seems to be a Brazilian tech community thing. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Reirom is Brazilian; the emulation community is international and conducts its affairs largely in English, but at the moment he has achieved the status of Colorful Forum Personality. To break through to the next level, he needs to originate a phrase which becomes an w:Internet phenomenon and his advocates need to do some promotional stunts similar to w:All_your_base_are_belong_to_us. --Eustace Tilley 11:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Protect if necessary. Rmhermen 13:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • There were two anonymous votes; I removed it because
    • this is not a vote literal but factly a discussion to make the community consensus. (Wikipedia currently made a good and brief explanation of this point as a template). So not only anonymous votes but also new comers' vote are not welcome here, specially those people have no legitimate edits on this project. (On the other hand, Veronica Mars vote showed us a good model what Wikiquote editors can do and how they can save the article from deletion).
    • No vote without signiture (and both were from IP) is allowed as far as I understand on our project.
  • So I got rid of two anonymous votes. I don't oppose any registered Wikiquote editors restore them from history but at that time I hope that editor will join the discussion what kind of vote we have here on VfD. --Aphaia 01:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. WQ is not a discussion forum about already deleted topics. jni 07:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jni said quite well. --Aphaia 19:27, 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 23:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Can'tDelete

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. — LrdChaos 12:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Imdb

edit

This template, which was used only on one page until I changed it, mostly duplicates the functionality of the much more widely-used {{imdb name}} template. —LrdChaos 20:54, 7 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]

Template:Intro

edit

Pointless template created by an anon and not used on any pages. —LrdChaos 20:27, 22 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. — Aphaia 22:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Substub

edit
  • Page blanked. Probably a level of detail we don't need on this project. Rmhermen 15:27, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: delete (2 Deletes; finally no dissent during 26 days discusion). --Aphaia 22:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Many Wikipedians seem to think they don't need that level of detail, either. I'd say {{stub}} (and its more specific relatives, courtesy of RoboAction) is adequate. — Jeff Q (talk) 19:44, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Wait, pending discussion of use for "framework" articles (i.e., structure but no quotes). — Jeff Q (talk) 05:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Delete. I'm thinking that using this template name for "framework" articles would be confusing, so I'm going back to my original deletion vote. — Jeff Q (talk) 20:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Too fine-grained mechanism for a project smaller than WP. I prefer either stub or nothing. jni 10:26, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Deleted. --Aphaia 22:15, 27 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 20:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Warningdonotredirect

edit

Useless unused template: it can never be used for anything legitimate. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 03:01, 4 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 Portal:portal, no consensus/keep Template:Wikimedia. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikimedia, Portal:portal

edit

More portal stuff. Not discussed, only contributed to by anon, still at experimental stage. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 19:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote closed. Results: "Portal:portal" delete (3 Deletes; no dissent); "Template:Wikimedia" no consensus (de facto keep) (1 Delete; 1 Keep; 1 absention). Moshe's rationale, if I understand it correctly, suggests we should have voted the same way on both, but we didn't for whatever reason. Hopefully an orphan template will either be no great concern for the near future, or maybe prove to be useful. Otherwise, we can renominate it down the road for another review. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 19:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain for now for Template:Wikimedia.
  • Delete Portal:portal; we have no consensus if we have Portal (pseudo-)namespace. --Aphaia 04:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Portal:portal" unless anonymous user registers and convinces the community what use such pages would be. Keep "Template:Wikimedia" for now, as it may be a useful substitute for multiple interwiki boxes. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Re: Template: Please note that the only page currently using the template is the above-mentioned Portal. I do not believe it is a coincidence. Notice that it links to pages with the same name on the 'pedia (which is sane), wiktionary (which we rarely do -- we usually only link to wiktionary in theme pages if it's obvious there'll be no 'pedia article), 'source (which we link to when it's a written source in the PD, which is quite rare anyway, but in any case certainly not in themes) and commons (which we almost never link to -- the only sane reasons would be audio/video files of someone saying quotes, and so would be mostly from people pages). Note also that 'source and 'pedia themselves often disagree on naming, and wikiquote sometimes disagrees with either of them (I think we try to strive for true to source at all costs much more than wikipedia, so we often use & where they use and -- I guess it's a cultural thing). So, to sum up, the only way the template could be useful, ever, is if we had an article which is named the same in 'pedia, 'source and commons, we would think that even though we have a 'pedia link, a wiktionary link would be useful, and that the commons link is useful for quotes. The likelihood for that is so low, that if it does crop up when we're 50K articles, we might as well just use four boxes (for something like that, surely the list of external links would be large enough so the four boxes + external links would actually take up less vert-space than using the template). However, for portals, this template makes perfect sense: the Law portal on wikiquote would link to the Law portal on 'pedia, the Law portal on wiktionary (useful for those pesky legal terms), the Law portal on commons (illustrating the quotes, perhaps?) and a link to the Law portal on 'source (so people would have an easy time browsing all the source files) and even a link to the Law portal on 'books (so people could learn more about the law to understand what quotations mean). So, if we decide that at this point in time we're not ready for portals (before discussion, using demos in Wikiquote namespace and so on), I am pretty sure this template will remain useless. Sorry for the long rant. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:35, 9 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 (Talk) 14:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:RyanCahn

edit
Delete Stupid biography! RyanCahn
Untimestamped signature confirmed coming from cited user in 22:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC) edit. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: invalid nomination, so I assume we can reject it; personally I suspect this user want only to make another trouble now. I prefer to keep it but put a new version with {{thisuserisblocked}}. Aphaia 23:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • VOTE CLOSED: Result: delete but user is warned that further edits will be watched for with an eye to disruption (3 delete, large consensus that user is a trouble maker) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 14:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see how this is an invalid nomination, as the user himself is requesting deletion of his user page. RyanCahn has already given us enough reason to block him per policy. I was going to speedy-delete the user page, but I realized that case #10 of Wikiquote:Speedy deletions allows for user subpage deletions, but not necessarily user page deletions. Is there any Wikimedia project-wide policy on user page deletions? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant mainly 1) lack of timestamp 2) lack of link, but perhaps I was too bureaucratic. I don't oppose to accept it. Anyway it is a request by user himself. Aphaia 03:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I always took the "sub" page deletion policy as "sub*page", and not just "sub+page", but maybe I was wrong. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 03:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think subpage means [[user:somebody/XX]], but it is a good occasion to make sure what each of us think about this description. As for project-wide policy, there is no such thing as far as I know. I don't know the policy on English project than ours (we have almost nothing except it is still under policy as well as other pages). On Japanese Wikipedia, it has a special request page, but it doesn't make a sense here due to the project size supposedly, requests are to be reviewed for a week as well other requests, but the discussion s aren't archived because most of requests are related to some their private issues (a typical case is: one wrote once his private information and later realized its potential security flaw). --Aphaia 03:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would think that we could delete any user page, user talk, or user subpage or user talk subpage requested for deletion by the user and to which the user is the only contributor. But perhaps that interpretation is only my own. Rmhermen 13:21, 17 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: Deleted. --Aphaia 08:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:SlawekP

edit

The text on this page is confirmed as Polish and Polish Wikiquoter TOR gave his opinion to us (see my talk). Briefly,

  • The content is a religious sorts of quotes including Bible
  • At least one publisher is mentioned
  • Links seems to aim to increase google rank
  • It seems to violate Wikiquote policy "not personal website"

hence he suggested to delete this page. And I need to add, this is the sole editing from this account. --Aphaia 02:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • VOTE CLOSED: Deleted. (4 deletes, no dissent.)--Aphaia 08:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikiquote is not a hosting service.--Aphaia 02:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. en:Wikiquote can demand even user pages to be in English in order to determine appropriateness. This is a clear example of how non-English text can be used to subvert WQ standards (no personal webpage hosting) without the community being aware of it. It harms the legitimate use of other languages (e.g., original-language quotations with translations). — Jeff Q (talk) 04:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. en.wikiquote user pages should be in English. If, in addition to the English text, a user also wants to add a short comment in his first language, that might not be an issue, but other than that it should be in English because that's what appropriate for en.wikiquote, and also so that we could easily see whether he's using the page to host personal stuff, as opposed to wikiquote stuff, like in this case. Sams 08:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I humbly oppose your idea, Sams. English text on the user page is preferable and kind for other users. But I don't think it as must or mundatory. I have many accounts on various wikis whose languages I can't understand (mainly for interlang links) but there has been no problem. The point is in my opinion "if we allow advertisement on the user page" not "if we allow other language(s) than English on the user page". --Aphaia 15:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (would look odd if I didn't support my own suggestion, right? ;)). As for the "should be in English" rule proposal I'm with Britty - no language-related constraints should be used to limit the freedom of a user to put whatever he/she wishes on his/her User page. As long as it doesn't violate any Wiki policies. This one does, and that's that. Don't look at the language, look at the meaning and the goal of the author. --TOR 16:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with Aphaia and TOR in principle, but there are severe practical problems with non-English pages in en:Wikiquote. How can we tell if pages violate policy if we can't read them? We don't have the active multilingual eyeballs on en:Wikiquote. I respectfully suggest that finding such a page in Polish was exceedingly lucky. If we had 200,000+ readers, we could probably expect someone to bring such pages to our attention regularly, but I really doubt we have any idea whatsoever whether others are doing this. I'd rather craft a policy encouraging English use on en:Wikiquote user pages (without restricting them to English-only, of course) than getting into the business of monitoring user pages and then finding translators for non-English pages just to verify they're not violating policy (which they almost always wouldn't be). Our maintenance staff is stretched thin enough as it is. — Jeff Q (talk) 21:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I assumed that since a user pages shouldn't be a personal page but should be related to wikiquote, and since this is en.wikiquote, the conclusion is that a user page should be related to English:), or more strongly, should use English primarily. But it seems that I was wrong, and at least in principle everyone else disagrees... ok then, no problem... I agree with JeffQ that in practice we might have a significant problem, but if you prefer, we could wait and see whether this problem repeats itself, before trying to formulate a policy. Sams 23:48, 3 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 (Talk) 11:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote:Other ｌanguage Wikiquotes

edit

… and its associated talk page, Wikiquote talk:Other ｌanguage Wikiquotes. Another pair of leftover redirects to good pages from unlikely typos. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:57, 2 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 (Talk) 11:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote:Out of the Past

edit

Leftover redirect after moving a proper article to Out of the Past in the main article space. Not sure if we have a case for speedy deletion. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:53, 2 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. — Jeffq 23:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote:People articles in Wikipedia to be linked to Wikiquote

edit

Not only is this page breathtakingly out of date, but with Wikiquote at over 3100 articles, it is monstrously unscaleable. It is far easier to use "Random page", "All articles", or "Recent changes" to inspect articles and take a few seconds each to fix missing links as one comes across them. — Jeff Q (talk) 06:41, 3 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. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote:Yo, Millard Fillmore!

edit

One more leftover redirect from a move, this one to proper article Yo, Millard Fillmore!. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:00, 2 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.

Deleted images

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. — MosheZadka 03:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2cute.jpg

edit

unused larger version of a user image: Image:Th 2cute.jpg. Not necessary. Rmhermen 16:42, 15 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 06:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Americanpsycho.jpg

edit

Deletion requested by only uploader, uncertain copyright status, not used. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 18:48, 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. — MosheZadka 06:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ariel (arik) sharon 1yossi-3.jpg

edit

Unused image which is a copyright violation. Rmhermen 19:54, 2 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. — Jeffq 20:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:Auschwitz11.jpeg

edit
  • Unused image, no mention of license. Commons will have pictures on this subject. Rmhermen 14:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote closed. Result: Deleted (2 Deletes, 1 implicit delete; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 20:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Delete we shouldn't accept {{unsourced}} a/o Template:Unverified. And as for this image with another Auschwitz one, I doubt they were uploaded on a good faith. Cf. User:Harrykel. I asked the editor to modify his or her user page. --Aphaia 18:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Uploaded for no apparent Wikiquote purpose. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:54, 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: Deleted. — Jeffq 20:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:Auschwitz60-faces MINI.gif

edit
  • Another unused image. Rmhermen 14:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote closed. Result: Deleted (2 Deletes, 1 implicit delete; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 20:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Without source nor licence, either. --Aphaia 18:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Uploaded for no apparent Wikiquote purpose. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:54, 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 06:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Banagode.jpg

edit

Image was moved to talk page a long time ago, so it is essentially unused. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 22:41, 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: Deleted. --Aphaia 29 June 2005 23:30 (UTC)

Image:Crane5002 Pub and Contentsa.jpg

edit

Image perhaps relevant to discussion on "Dr. Crane". This image tells almost nothing but a certain book exists - only inperfect copyright information & index. But the biggest problem is no information is available on its own copyright status! (no photograher info, no licence ...). Already Kalki informed this uploader we need not it and if it is under free licence, it would be better to upload on commons.

  • Vote closed: Deleted. (3 deletes, no dissent) --Aphaia 29 June 2005 23:30 (UTC)
  • Delete --Aphaia 04:05, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not our purpose. Rmhermen 03:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jeff Q (talk) 05:16, 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: deleted. — Jeffq 07:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Crane5atitle.jpg

edit

Unnoticed relic of Dr. Crane's dispute. Unused. --Aphaia 16:49, 27 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. — Jeffq 05:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Dan.jpg

edit

Image associated only with pending deletion page Daniel Aubrey Rmhermen 14:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: Deleted (2 Deletes, 1 implicit Delete; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 05:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Aphaia 17:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:24, 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: UNIDENTIFIED. NO SIGNATURE

Image:DJcubeV3.jpg

edit

Hard to image any use for this unused image. Rmhermen 02:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. A personal logo for someone who has no other contributions nor userpage. Has been unused since last October. jni 12:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Same as Jni. --Aphaia 14:21, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jeff Q (talk) 22:40, 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. — MosheZadka 09:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Einstein.jpg

edit

This image has no copyright information and has been replaced by a Commons one on Albert Einstein. I have asked the uploader Alan J Franklin to provide a source for the image but have received no response. -- Rmrfstar 09:24, 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: deleted.. — Jeffq 01:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:Frank Crane Four Minute Essays vol 5 Title Page.jpg, Image:Crane5008 1919 Essays vol5 pg8.jpg, Image:Crane5004 1919 Essays Vol 5 Page4.jpg

edit

Remaining images of Four Minute Essays from Dr. Frank Crane. Even if the Crane article survives deletion, we have no reason to retain the images of its pages, not even on Commons. — Jeff Q (talk) 01:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • VOTE CLOSED: Result: deleted. (3 deleted, no dissent).
  • Delete. Jeff Q (talk) 01:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete without transwiki to Commons. --Aphaia 01:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete them all. 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: Deleted. — Jeffq 20:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:Frank Crane vol5 pg6.jpg

edit
  • Unused image of two pages from a book. Perhaps a misunderstanding of what Wikiquote is? Rmhermen 14:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: Deleted (2 Deletes, 1 arguably implicit delete; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 20:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. GwenOgren's only WQ contributions so far are page images and a Dr. Frank Crane article using these images. Kalki asked her about this on 13 May, but nothing appears to have come from this. If anyone feels there are some good quotes from these pages, I suggest they transcribe them before the images get deleted. Otherwise, I suspect we'll be nominating the article as well. — Jeff Q (talk) 04:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Transcription to the talk (or Image talk) will be an idea. --Aphaia 20:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: relevant vote on #Image:Crane5002 Pub and Contentsa.jpg. --Aphaia 20:30, 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 20:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:Franklin.jpg

edit
  • Unused image. The article appears to use a different one from the Commons although we don't have the nice Commons message that Wikipedia has. Rmhermen 14:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • VOTE CLOSED. — Result: Deleted (2 Deletes, 1 implicit deleted; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 20:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Superfluous. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete We can just import Commons message from Wikipedia, I guess, like some other templates like {{test}} --Aphaia 20:24, 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 05:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Gandhi.gif

edit

Unused image with no license information which appears to have been replaced by Image:Gandhi.jpg Rmhermen 14:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: Deleted (2 Deletes, 1 implicit Delete). — Jeff Q (talk) 05:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Aphaia 17:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:27, 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. — MosheZadka 06:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gandhi.jpg, Image:Jefferson.jpg, Image:Hesse.jpg, Image:Keller.jpg,

edit

Unused source-less images. All have versions from commons used on the relevant person's page. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 22:06, 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: delete. — MosheZadka 03:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gotham Central 007-Renee.png

edit

Unused image. Claimed to be fair use. Not necessary. Rmhermen 16:34, 15 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. — Jeffq 07:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hippocrates.jpg

edit

Unused image, and Commons has the equivalent (PD). --Aphaia 16:49, 27 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 07:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ich Bin Ein Berliner

edit

0-length file, recovered because of some software error. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 12:48, 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: Deleted.. --Aphaia 18:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Internet limecat.jpg

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 6 July 2005 08:04 (UTC)

Image:Keyes-sharon-3.gif Image:Keyes sharon 2002.jpg Image:Keyessharon2002.jpg Image:041102speech keyes conceding defeat.jpg

edit

All are unused and unverified (no source information). I asked the uploader if he or she would like to provide us information on the talk. --Aphaia 02:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: Result: deleted. (2 deletes, one comment favorable to delete, no dissent) --Aphaia 6 July 2005 08:04 (UTC)
  • Delete. Why do we have any images being uploaded to Wikiquote? Offhand, I can't think of any ordinary image that would be appropriate for Wikiquote that wouldn't be at least as appropriate for Wikipedia, so they should all be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons instead. Perhaps we should disable image uploading here? — Jeff Q (talk) 00:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: A proposal worthy to consider. French Wikipedia allows its editors to upload images copyrighted and never used on encyclopediac artices (and most of such images will decorate their user pages or talks). Unless we have a similar policy and have our own facebook, and unless we don't use fair use image, I think Jeff Q's idea "upload disabled" is very reasonable. Some projects which don't allow Fair Use images, like French Wikinews, make upload function disabled for your information. --Aphaia 01:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. And move the interesting discussion here about fair use and disabling uploads to a policy page or the Village Pump. 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: Deleted. — Jeffq 10:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MAHARAJI WIKIPEDIA.jpg

edit

Another unused image. A different version is used in the article. Rmhermen 22:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: Deleted (1 Delete, 1 arguably implicit delete; 1 Keep; resolvable copyright questions muddling the issue). I will try to contact the copyright owner to see if the license for either or both images can be extended to Wikimedia Commons (and therefore to Wikiquote), at which point we may consider further action. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Aphaia 17:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This image is more appropriate than the one currently used in Prem Rawat. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:35, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Its description on Wikipedia sais, the permission of this image is explicit to Wikipedia. I hope we can ask the copyright holder to expand their permission to the entire Wikimedia project, but currently we have no explicit permission in my humble opinion. --Aphaia 19:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The other picture, Image:T ym2.jpg, has the same restricted license from Wikipedia. I don't believe we are legally permitted to keep either of these images without obtaining explicit permission. However, I don't feel I can properly close this vote. There are two evenly divided explicit votes (although one can arguably infer a "delete" from Rmhermen's original posting), which would imply no consensus, but since that has the same effect as my "keep" vote, I feel it might be controversial. I propose we close this vote as inconclusive, immediately request explicit permission for the use of one or both of these photos, and then revote for deletion whichever image we don't have permission for, or that we think we don't need. — Jeff Q (talk) 06:15, 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: Deleted. — Jeffq 05:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Mark twain.jpg

edit

Unused image, article uses different picture: Image:Mark Twain.jpg I don't believe we need multiple pictures - beside linking to Wikicommons should be the preferred method. Rmhermen 14:13, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: Deleted (2 Deletes, 1 implicit Delete; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 05:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Aphaia 17:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:29, 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. — MosheZadka 07:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Meera13.png

edit

Source unknown: see w:Image:Meera13.png, which should have been deleted by WP policies two months ago. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:30, 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: UNIDENTIFIED. NO SIGNATURE

Image:P12.jpg, Image:P22.jpg, Image:P32.jpg, Image:P42.jpg

edit

Screen captures from Platoon, apparently. We probably don't need all, maybe don't need any. Rmhermen 02:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete I like we use fair use images as less as possible. --Aphaia 14:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. I think that, if we want a fair-use Platoon image, there's a better one on Wikipedia. — Jeff Q (talk) 23:11, 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: Deleted all three images. — Jeffq 13:06, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Post-72-1104633338.jpg, Image:Post-72-1104633316.jpg, Image:Post-72-1104633289.jpg

edit

No licence info, no used on articles. Poster have no intention to give licence information, see User Talk:OA. --Aphaia 13:33, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Vote closed. Result: Deleted all three images (4 Deletes, 1 implicit Delete; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 13:06, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. These are from Reirom, am I right? Consider changing WQ:DP to allow routine deletion of article's non-shared images when the article itself gets deleted. jni 12:10, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: NO ... they are from nowhere. The folk who uploaded them said images were related, but they didn't nothing --- even putting those images on the page. Besides that, your proposal seems to me worthy to consider. --Aphaia 14:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Rmhermen 13:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. — Jeff Q (talk) 02:44, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Vote for clarification. --Aphaia 19:24, 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. — MosheZadka 09:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Queenmum2.jpg

edit

On Wikipedia, it should have been deleted about 6 months ago according to their policies: it comes from an unknown source. I believe it should be deleted here, without regards to whether WP follows policies correctly. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 12:06, 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 all. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Stop hand.png, Image:Wiki letter w.png, Image:WikiThanks.png, Image:Wikipedesketch1.png and more

edit

Other images added to this VfD: Image:WIKI.PNG, Image:FreeCiv B.great library.png, Image:David face.png, Image:Televisionset.jpg, Image:FilmRoll-small.gif, Image:Wikinews-logo2-35px.png, Image:Wikimedia.png, Image:Jan Christiaan Smuts 1919.jpg, Image:Traudlhead.jpg, Image:WMAP Universe Image.jpg, Image:Wikibooks.png, Image:Wikisource.jpg, Image:Ramsey clark-pres johnson.jpg

Images which have been uploaded here but have versions in commons. I would also like people who are involved in the discussion to comment whether "Image exists in commons" could be considered an SD criterion. For the reason that there are several images, and I'm also trying to formulate a policy, I'm giving three weeks for the discussion. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:10, 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 08:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wiktionary.png, Image:Wiki-textbook.png, Image:Wiki-meta.png, File:Sourceberg.jpg

edit

Weird things that look like images but are redirects, nothing links to those. Can't imagine the possible use even if they were images, since everything exists on commons. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 22:13, 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: Deleted. --Aphaia 22:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:Wilsonwoodrow1.jpg

edit

Identical image with identical location on Wikicommons. Suggest: link Commons image to Wikiquote Woodrow Wilson entry, and delete redundant Wikiquote image. -- Benn M 09:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • VOTE CLOSED: Deleted. (3 deletes, no dissent). --Aphaia 22:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think merely deleting this image will automatically link the article to the Commons image. We should promote the use of the Commons on this project as we have not developed/imported an extensive set of copyright tags/rules for images yet. Rmhermen 14:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, then verify Wikicommons image shows up. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:56, 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.

Pending deletion

edit

The votes on these articles were for deletion, but are still awaiting actual deletion by sysops.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Votes_for_deletion_archive&oldid=1613535"