Wikiquote

Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive

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]