Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Log/2007 March

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

The result was: delete. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 23:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A computer game page, set up in June 2006 in the form of an introduction without any accompanying quotes. Since then no quotes have been added, so it remains an essentially empty page. Antiquary 18:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closed: Result: Delete. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 23:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. - InvisibleSun 22:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The Legend of Zelda pages have some history here that suggest few people are interested in making them into good articles. Jaxl (aka "Robert") tried to do something with them back in August 2006, but apparently was ignored by the regular editors of these articles. I briefly discussed this with him as well, but I'm afraid I wasn't any help. We tagged one of the VfD'd articles, Legend of Zelda: Other: Games (Unidentified), for merger with The Legend of Zelda series, but it has yet to be executed. Frankly, given our inability thus far to come up with a useful means of citing "sourced" quotes from electronic games, I think they're all ripe for deletion. Maybe we could get some action on mergers and weeding out inanity and unoriginality this way. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom and Jeffq. ~ UDScott 12:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.--Jusjih 16:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even without broaching the larger issue of Zelda pages in general, the fact that this one contains no quotes means it can stand on its own as worthy of deletion. —LrdChaos (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We don't need empty pages!--Poetlister 14:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: delete. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 23:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, this seems similar to Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Elias Aslaksen, concerning a leader of Smith's Friends, which failed to achieve a consensus. However, the current content of the article may make this one simpler — not a single quote comes from a standard reliable source. We have 2 from Multiply, a social networking service; 3 from TypePad, a blogging service; 1 from an in-church publishing system (the kind I compare to corporate publications in the Aslaksen discussion), 2 from an apparent personal website, and 1 from a YouTube video. None of these are guaranteed to be who they claim to be, unless we can establish some kind of editorial responsibility from an independent source. There may be some chance of that from links in w:Every Nation, but so far this sounds like nothing more than well-organized promotion of web-savvy members of a very small movement. Add that to the question of the WP article's problems with w:WP:BLP, w:WP:V, and possibly w:WP:NPOV, and it seems unlikely we'll get useful quotes from proven notables on this subject. Delete unless independent, reliable notability evidence provided and quotes sourced by confirmed valid sources (not just testimonials from WP users). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closed: Result: Delete. I decided to hold off on closing this at the deadline to give Blueboy96 and others extra opportunity to find sources but none were added. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 23:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom, unless independent, reliably notable sources are provided. ~ UDScott 17:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems to violate every rule in the book.--Poetlister 21:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Can you guys hold your horses? I'm kinda new to Wikiquote, and I know a lot of these start out in bad shape. I can find quotes from more reliable sources--just give me time, OK? Blueboy96 01:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are also w:User:Blueboy96, then judging by some of the mediation discussion I skimmed through at w:Talk:Every Nation, I imagine you know what Wikimedia means by independent, reliable sources. I see two issues here: determining if (A) this subject and the quoted people are notable enough for quoting; and (B) the quotes are reliably attributable. Wikiquotians reviewing this article can probably derive some information on (A) by examining the state and discussion about the WP article, so improving its sources would help. (Currently these look to me, with very few exceptions, to be all church- and churchmember-sponsored works, which aren't independent, and government filings, which say almost nothing about notability in the Wikimedia sense.) But the more information you provide here (that is, in the article, as opposed to on WP), the more likely you will to get well-informed and possibly favorable responses. Quotes from independent sources not only aid (B) but also provide some indication of notability, as established publishers demonstrate that they find the organization worth reporting on. The rest of the quote issue is trying to confirm the editorial control of and identities behind the social-network pages, blogs, and personal websites. This is a challenging business and is a major reason why we typically just disregard these as sources. Relying on such sources is likely not to move Wikiquotians toward a "keep" position, as it's hard to distinguish from promotional attempts. I hope this gives you a feel for the scope of the work to be done here. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, pure self-promotion I think, and thanks to Jeff Q for the detective work on sourcing. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 22:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Since I am new to Wikiquote, I am choosing not to vote. I added several quotes on the Every Nation page based on the quotes I saw that were already on there, but I leave the decision to the Wikiquote experts on this . . . Thanks! Varsha Daswani 07:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: keep. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 08:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a Wikiquote article - it's a Wikipedia one

• Vote closed early: Result: Keep. Quotes have been added. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 08:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless reliably sourced quotes added. This was not only a Wikipedia article, it was the Wikipedia article, simply pasted into Wikiquote. I have replaced it with some boilerplate structure to allow quotes to be added if we can find any. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I meant that it was the Wikipedia article.--Poetlister 22:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incidentally, there is a matching article on Patrick Pearse. I treated it in the same way, but there is a quote there so I'm not nominating it for VfD.--Poetlister 23:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep now that sourced quotes added. Thanks, Domer48! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete. - InvisibleSun 02:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep now that quotes have been added. - InvisibleSun 12:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unless valid, sourced quotes are added. ~ UDScott 12:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, now that quotes have been added. ~ UDScott 14:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless sourced quotes are added.--Jusjih 16:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. —LrdChaos (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with the improvements. —LrdChaos (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I will reference it and clean it up. --86.42.86.182 09:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)--Domer48 10:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete theres no quotes --McNoddy 09:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I see no reason for its deletion as theere are quotes now--McNoddy 11:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep see my comment--McNoddy 12:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep now it has sourced quotes. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 14:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As this is now a completely different article from the one I nominated for VfD, I withdraw my nomination.--Poetlister 21:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per withdrawn nom. Tyrenius 04:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: speedy delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of quotes from every episodes of a non-notable YouTube video series. Wikipedia article about the series itself has been deleted repeatedly (see: w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yu-Gi-Oh: The Abridged Series, w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yu-Gi-Oh!: The Abridged Series). Also nominating Yu-Gi-Oh!: The Abridged Series, a duplicate of the page. NeoChaosX 02:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closes: 03:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Vote closed early. Result: speedy delete, unremarkable subject. Even if this article had asserted notability, we have ample evidence from 2 Wikipedia AfDs that it can't possibly demonstrate it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly a hoax a/o not notable --Aphaia 07:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closes: 08:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The Wikipedia article, created in January by the same person who created this page, is about someone who is admittedly "largely unknown." Google search confirms the same. - InvisibleSun 07:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless reliably, independently sourced information provided (along with properly sourced quotes) as notability evidence. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete while Wikipedia deleted the article as vanity per w:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Samuel_Lambeth.--Jusjih 16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. ~ UDScott 17:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hoax or vanity, it doesn't really matter. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 22:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'd say a schoolboy prank.--Poetlister 15:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete After the article was deleted on WP, it was recreated with a lower case "l" for the surname. I've just deleted it. It seems he is genuine, but known only at school level and on myspace. Tyrenius 02:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: delete. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 22:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need for this page, the purpose of which might be better served with a category. ~ UDScott 13:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closed: Result: Delete. I will check that it is worth a category. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 22:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC) I can't find any of these articles which actually have quotes from games, so I do not propose to create a category. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 22:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, and create a category for Disney Channel games. ~ UDScott 13:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but disagree with category unless these games deserve pages. Do they exist? Dev920 13:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete period. This is a quoteless article merely mentioning Disney.com game titles, which are unlikely to provide any pithy quotes anyway. The creator of this and other Disney articles is merely creating quoteless framework pages. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete UDScott has a good point I agree--McNoddy 15:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and categorise (if that's the right word)--Cato 22:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. - InvisibleSun 07:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Do we have any quote articles on Disney Channel games to categorize? If not, there's not point in having a category for them. That's the point I meant to make above. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.--Jusjih 16:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dev920.--Poetlister 15:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: delete. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 22:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need for this page, which seems more appropriate for wikipedia, and currently only contains a link to another vfd-nominated page. ~ UDScott 13:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closed: Result: Delete. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 22:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. ~ UDScott 13:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as poorly done redirect. Dev920 13:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this redirect to the soon-to-be-deleted quoteless article Disney Channel Games. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete quote less--McNoddy 15:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.--Cato 22:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. - InvisibleSun 07:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.--Jusjih 16:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Poetlister 15:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: delete. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No such film exists, or has even been confirmed by the studio as in production; there is no IMDb page and the corresponding Wikipedia article has been deleted. Smurrayinchester 08:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closed: Result: Delete. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. ~ UDScott 12:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a 2009 movie (in theory at least) it's pretty much impossible to source. Koweja 14:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I assume that "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" holds here too.--Poetlister 17:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If it were confirmed as existing and these were genuine quotes, which were obtained despite a studio embargo, then it could result in legal problems. There has been extensive discussion of a similar situation on WP. (I think OFFICE intervened eventually.) Tyrenius 02:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--Cato 21:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. - InvisibleSun 04:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looks like its in the works, but an unreleased film has no place here. Dev920 06:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all the reasons above. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Checking Wikipedia as an admin there, I have found its article deleted as uncomfirmed future film.--Jusjih 16:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment; having read the page again, the entire page seems to be borderline patent nonsense about what might happen if Chamillionaire appeared in Over the Hedge (hence random references to 'dawgs' and Pimp My Ride). If Wikiquote had its own Bad Jokes and other Deleted Nonsense page, I'd strongly suggest moving this there. Smurrayinchester 13:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: Speedy Close (Owner's agreement) -- Delete the images, Rename User:GordonWattsDotCom to User:GordonWatts, and and Keep the userpages..

• Image:GordonEnhancedPicRally.jpg
• Image:GordonThen.jpg
• Image:GordonWatts.jpg
• User:GordonWattsDotCom
• User_talk:GordonWattsDotCom

The images above are not used, and are not able to be used anywhere on Wikiquote except in the userspace. The images are non-sourced and pretty off-topic. The userpages are of a user who has not edited for over a year and are just advertising his webpages. It contains personal information that we are not sure he still wants made public since he no longer edits here. Finally, his usename is also blatant advertising for his website and would have been blocked had it not been made prior to the writing and enforcement of the blocking policy. Cbrown1023 talk 22:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"...he no longer edits here..." While I don't know if I will edit much here in the near future (I have other responsibilities), and in fact, I do not plan to edit much, I have made a bunch of recent contributions, simply because I figured I would be productive while I was here answering the posts on this page. Observe: Special:Contributions/GordonWattsDotCom--With kind regards, I am, Sincerely, GordonWattsDotCom 10:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closes: 23:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as nom. Cbrown1023 talk 22:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't like the pretend messages bar that directs to the user's own website; I don't like the personal information; I don't like the soapboxing, and I don't think this page meets userpage policy. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 23:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment He's active on WP as User:Gordon Watts (well, not for the next week [1]). I've emailed him to notify him of this VfD. He's got 400 edits (mostly on Abortion) here. I don't like the idea of deleting a user page because the editor hasn't been here for a while. His edits are still in the edit history and he can be contacted on WP via his user page here. He was allowed to have the user name, and there is precedent on WP (WQ links to Wikipedia:Username policy) for established names to be allowed, even when new policy would outlaw them. Users are allowed to have personal biographical info and photos on their user page per Wikipedia:User page, and in fact quite a deal of latitude. It's their responsibility to remove information, if they don't want it there any more. There may be some items that could be considered inappropriate – I would consider the false message boxes to be such, for example. Oh, don't know if it applies here, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Tyrenius 01:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You may not be aware, but it is considered bad faith to point that out in a discussion, especially at experienced users who definitely know of that. Cbrown1023 talk 01:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  That may be true, Cbrown1023 talk, but for a person to be accused of violating policy (like I was) by you and others -and for the person to NOT be notified, and then for the accusations to NOT be supported by policy (you and Fys did not support your claims by citing to documented policy), is very bad faith, in my honest opinion. (I feel this way because I do not think you would like it if what was done to me was, instead, done to you.) So, I can deduce that Tyrenius' reply to such comments was not in bad faith because he or she was correcting what is probably a violation of policy -and what is certainly not polite behaviour. If someone talked about you behind your back, you would want to be defended, so I conclude that Tyrenius' edit was not in bad faith at all. (Unless, of course, a double standard applies, but it should not, as it would not be fair. Are you fair?) I'm not being rude -not intentionally. I am only asking that you treat others as you would want to be treated, that is, that you are fair. Is that an untenable request -or a good one?--GordonWattsDotCom 08:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I fail to see how it can be bad faith to define the facts that are at the heart of an issue. Nor do I see a basis for assuming that everyone taking part in this VfD will be aware of them (I wasn't until I did some research). Furthermore, I am stating them, so that I can get a community response to them to see if they are viewed on WQ in the same way as on WP, as I have come across differences before. I am, to say the least, puzzled at your response. I think also that this process should have been a last resort, only after dialogue with the editor concerned had failed to be productive, but there is no evidence that it was attempted. Tyrenius 01:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I am sorry about that. As you may have seen, I have been busy around Wikiquote with the Sidebar and Lynx... I overlooked that accidentally and did not e-mail him after you said that you had already. Cbrown1023 talk 01:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No problem. I understand busy! WQ email wasn't enabled anyway. Tyrenius 01:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep some - Delete Some, etc. I vote to keep the User and Talk pages, to rename the page from "GordonWattsDotCom" to "GordonWatts" and to delete all the images. If I later decide to upload an image to Commons, it shall be my responsibility, as Jeff has said. This vote superceded my prior vote, which I am updating, and this compromise should help the Peace Process and increase community goodwill.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't even think that a few votes like this constitutes consensus, and even if so, the standard for consensus is even greater than the standard for a majority. However, since no one else has put a percentage number on what constitutes a "consensus," no one should hold it against me if I don't, but my comment here otherwise seems valid.--GordonWattsDotCom 08:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep user pages, move properly licensed images to commons:Wikimedia Commons and delete all the images from here. I do not believe we have either policy or practice that suggests we should be nominating user pages so casually. Based on previous Wikiquote experience with soapboxing users, if we have a problem with excessive self-advertisement or soapboxing, we should ask GordonWattsDotCom to tone it down a bit, rather than use the VfD mechanism to force the issue at this time. As far as the images go, we can and should demand explicit sources for them. (Just saying "picture of me" is not a source.) However, they do have an explicit license statement, the lack of which is usually the motivation for deletion. Gordon, please note that since the time you've been occupied elsewhere, Wikiquote has been pruning old images because we are trying to encourage all media be moved to Commons. Now that you are back (at least temporarily), I recommend you upload your images there and include a statement like "private file" or "private image" along with your license statement to make clear that you own the image. There are far too many people who have been applying GFDL tags to images they don't own. As a lawyer I'm sure you can appreciate our reaction to this by insisting on explicit source statements. I can see a concern that Image:GordonEnhancedPicRally.jpg might be used without permission from a newspaper, and Image:GordonThen.jpg from a high-school yearbook, both of which are almost certainly copyrighted. Wikimedia does not consider the use of images in the user namespace to be fair use (see w:Wikipedia:Removal of fair use images#Fair use images on userpages for more information). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A clarification, based on the Aphaia's vote below: if we choose to "move" images to Commons, it's an implicit instruction to GordonWattsDotCom to do the Commons uploading. No one else has the legal right to move these unsourced images to Commons, and even Gordon will have to provide an explicit source. I guess that, as far as Wikiquote is concerned, a "move images" is an effective "delete them from WQ". ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep user page; move images, per Jeffq. ~ UDScott 12:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep user page (and talk), delete images. The original uploader will be able to re-upload images to commons under free licence(s) he prefers. Since Commons accept no fair use images. So I am hesitant to say "move 'em all". --Aphaia 17:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Userpages, are they not at the persons own discretion to edit etc but saying that anything thats against policy will have to go.--McNoddy 11:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It would be allowed on Wikipedia.--Poetlister 17:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poetlister, are you only referring to the user pages? The "Removal of fair use images" link I provide above indicates that unsourced, apparent "fair use" images used only for user pages would likely be removed from WP as well. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant that a bit of advertising is tolerated.--Poetlister 23:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Everyone, please make your votes clear about whether they cover everything nominated or just specific elements. Also, if you include comments that imply you're only talking about some of the elements, the closing sysop may not include your vote for the other elements. Either way, it makes it harder to tally opinions. Thank you for your assistance in this. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE a major portion of debate has been moved to the talk page. Tyrenius 01:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename User:GordonWattsDotCom to User:GordonWatts, which the user has suggested. I thank him for his understanding over this. Keep user page, whether editor is active or not. It occupies minimal disk space. We should honour those who have contributed their time and keep such records. Keep personal info, statements, external links per Poetlister (and images only if properly licensed). These are not excessive. Delete images as lacking full necessary copyright info, unless this is provided satisfactorily by the user. If it is, then it will be GFDL, so they can be moved to Commons per WQ site-wide policy and deleted from here anyway. The user page can still use them in that case with a link to Commons. Delete misleading "new message" boxes and ban any MediaWiki simulation, interference, joke uses etc. Tyrenius 02:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 20:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Image:Hemingway.jpg
• Image:Thequeen.jpg
• Image:JohnPerryBarlow.jpg

The images are assumed fair use (we are not sure where it came from or if we can use, we just assume that we can) or are do not have all necessary approval and source information and have been replaced by other Commons images. In the case of Hemingway.jpg, the only article it is in article has a much larger and free alternate. Cbrown1023 talk 21:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closed: 22:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete if replaced. Tyrenius 01:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. ~ UDScott 12:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tyrenius--Poetlister 17:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tyrenius - Cato 21:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. - InvisibleSun 04:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Dev920 05:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Cbrown1023, can you specify the "much larger and free alternate" for the Hemingway article you're suggesting, so the community can consider it? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The one that I was referring to was the one currently at the top of the article, it is much better in my opinion. Cbrown1023 talk 20:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--Jusjih 16:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 20:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been flagged for months but still has nothing sensible on it.--Poetlister 17:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closed: 18:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete--Poetlister 17:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott 17:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If anyone cares for it enough (I don't), get info from w:I Am Weasel. Tyrenius 01:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Cato 21:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. a good show, but current quotes are crap. Dev920 05:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 20:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article probably does not meet notability standards, but it is borderline (otherwise I would A4 it). Also, there is only one, non-notable quote. Cbrown1023 talk 00:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closes: 01:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete person does not have article on Wikipedia - not notable. Dev920 09:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. 210 Ghits cannot be notable.--Jusjih 14:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless evidence of notability is provided. ~ UDScott 14:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on balance.--Poetlister 17:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of notability. - InvisibleSun 17:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment According to The Times of India he is the representative in Sri Lanka of w:Art of Living, which claims 20m followers worldwide.[2] It was founded by Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, who has a fine page of (attributed) quotes. Tyrenius 02:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think Tyrenius has proved notability but that doesn't mean it's worth keeping.--Cato 21:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Is the representative in Sri Lanka of a worldwide organization of 20 million favorably comparable in notability in the English-speaking world to the Belgian head of the the Roman Catholic Church (1 billion)? I wouldn't assume the latter was especially notable for quotes either, unless we had some independent sources. Properly cited outside sources would help vouch for notability as well as provide a reliable sources for any quotes. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I note the word "claims", anyone can claim millions of supporters. I know this edit is supported by the entire population of China. Well I don't but I'm sure they would if they knew of it. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 22:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 01:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While the person may be notable, the listed quotes are of the short, inane variety and lack any sense of memorability. ~ UDScott 15:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closes: 16:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, unless sourced, pithy quotes are added (to replace those already on the page). ~ UDScott 15:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per UDScott. Dev920 09:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless sourced per above. The subject is a living person, so we should show sources.--Jusjih 14:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We need to be careful about living persons, though WP:BLP presumably isn't binding here.--Poetlister 17:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. - InvisibleSun 17:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete till better quotes arrive. As BLP is a strong Foundation issue I think it does apply. Tyrenius 02:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tyrenius.--Cato 21:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per UDScott and Tyrenius. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: delete both. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 13:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No quotes, only episode titles, despite these pages being created over a week ago. ~ UDScott 16:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closed: Result: Delete both. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 13:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unless quotes and introductions are added. ~ UDScott 16:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment you forgot to add the VFD tags to the articles. I add it and bumped the close time by an hour so it is seven days since the articles were tagged. Koweja 17:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's very strange, because I did add the tags (even though you are correct and I don't see it in the history of these pages). In following the new process, I always start by adding the tags, then following the link that then appears at the top of the page - so in other words, I never would have gotten to the newly created subpage unless I had first added the tags. A glitch perhaps? ~ UDScott 17:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe the database locked and for whatever reason you didn't get the error messages? Koweja 17:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That must be it. ~ UDScott 17:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That happened to me recently on Wikipedia.--Poetlister 17:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Cory in the House actually did have quotes - the page had just been blanked. That said, none of the quotes the type we're looking for here. Unfabulous never had any quotes. Delete unless someone wants to add quotes. Koweja 17:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--Poetlister 17:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. - InvisibleSun 21:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Theres no quotes --McNoddy 11:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unfabulous still empty; Cory in the House has some quotes, but all rather vapid.--Cato 21:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. Unfabulous was created by someone whose other edits suggest he won't be filling in any quotes any time soon, and it ignores our policy of avoid character quote sections for TV shows as unwieldy and source-problematic. I might recant on Cory in the House if the one or two quotes worth keeping were reformatted at least into dialog segments in an "Unidentified episode" section, per Wikiquote:Templates/TV shows, but a month of little activity doesn't bode well for it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: delete. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 13:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary page - there already exists a category that serves this purpose. ~ UDScott 16:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closed: Result: Delete. To take Tyrenius' point, the category ought to serve this purpose. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 13:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. ~ UDScott 16:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant and unnecessary. Koweja 17:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Koweja--Poetlister 17:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. - InvisibleSun 21:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. ---McNoddy 11:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but where is the category?--Jusjih 14:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Disney Channel shows, under Category:Shows by network. - Koweja 16:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This may be deletable for other reasons, but not the nom statement. This is essentially a list and as such is not replacable by a category. A list has other info (e.g. dates) for an overview not obtainable on the category page. If this table were more populated with blue links, I would suggest turning it into a navigation template to go at the bottom of the page of each of the shows.Tyrenius 02:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tyrenius, it is often good to have both an article and a category.--Cato 21:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Mine's not a keep by the way - just a comment. Tyrenius 03:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unlike Wikipedia, Wikiquote has been moving away from lists, which are a maintenance burden poorly supported by the infrequent editors who favor them. We have no compelling reason to include details like dates when that information is in the WQ articles and/or the WP lists and articles. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: delete. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio for entire lyrics to song. - InvisibleSun 10:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closed: Result: Delete. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. - InvisibleSun 10:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Select excerpt(s) can be added to Maureen McGovern, if someone wants to create that, or to Lyrics otherwise. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. ~ UDScott 16:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Individual works should only have their own pages in exceptional cases.--Poetlister 17:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.--Jusjih 14:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Jeffq. Copyvio needs to be a speedy category. Tyrenius 02:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Poetlister's point.--Cato 21:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: speedy delete, nonsense. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A list of words of any sort does not belong on Wikiquote. In any case, notable neologisms would appear on the main The Simpsons page and this page is empty.

• Vote closes: 23:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Vote closed early. Result: speedy-delete, nonsense. This article has periodically been used for nonsense edits from 2 IP addresses. If it continues, we'll just have to salt it with a {{deletedpage}}. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Tyrenius 23:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom --James La gloria è a dio 00:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: delete. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 10:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was put up for vote rather than speedy deletion because of the group's Wikipedia page, short-lived though it will likely be. The group, who has no album, nevertheless has a discography: its songs are described as "sung at a practice session," "still being composed" and — yes — "still in the thinking stage." Is anyone still in the thinking stage about what to do with this article?. - InvisibleSun 05:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closed: Result: Delete. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 10:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. - InvisibleSun 05:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: With 112000 Ghits, it may be somewhat notable, but I am unsure.--Jusjih 07:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I doubt that it's notable - number of ghits isn't everything.--Poetlister 14:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Love the nomination words. ~ UDScott 15:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Well, they don't have a wikipedia page any more, as I've speedy deleted it. Feel free to draw my attention to similar on my talk page on wikipedia. Tyrenius 05:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Tyrenius 05:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom --James La gloria è a dio 00:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Google can't really prove notability, only indicate non-notability. One must consider the actual links provided to find reliable notability evidence. In this case, it's obvious from the Google search that it's the common phrase "area of improvement" and its many other common uses, not the band that chose this name, that is the major contributor to Google hits. In addition to the implication of non-notability from our and WP's articles' content (they have two songs ([3]), no released albums, and the quotes are from undocumented practice sessions and school classes, for heaven's sake!), they have no trace (neither the band nor any of the members except the nondescript "Boss", almost certainly not the one here) in All Music Guide, which any notable (and many unnotable) Ohio bands would have. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 21:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation. ~ UDScott 13:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closed: 14:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, unless trimmed to a small sample (and moved to a page for the band). ~ UDScott 13:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Concur with UDScott. Unlikely that we'll get this, given that the creator, Brian Barbera (talk · contributions), is a known troll on Wikipedia whose sole useful edit here was this article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Poetlister 18:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. - InvisibleSun 22:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; even if it wasn't a copyvio, then it should be at Backstreet Boys (the band, not the name of the song) by precedent. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 00:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.--Jusjih 07:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Also Backstreet Boys page is a mess and completely unsourced, dumped here from WP. What's the solution for that? Tyrenius 05:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above. --James La gloria è a dio 00:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 21:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this page meets the notability requirement here. Wikipedia redirects this subject to its List of Internet phenomena page, and I don't see the need for this page to exist here, especially since it is nearly impossible to get reliably sourced quotes. ~ UDScott 18:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closes: 19:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. ~ UDScott 18:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. "Internet phenomena" should be assumed unnotable unless reliable, independent sources are cited to show otherwise. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh Dear. DELETE per nom. --Ubiquity 02:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. - InvisibleSun 03:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Jeff Q. "Internet phenomenon" is one of those giveaway phrases for non-notability. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 23:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Jaxl^Talk 00:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Articles pretty funny but its got to go--McNoddy 14:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not worth the space.--Poetlister 18:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.--Jusjih 07:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non notable. I've speedied the redirect on wiki as List of Internet phenomena doesn't mention it. Tyrenius 05:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. --La gloria è a dio 00:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete funny, but not notable enough for WQ. Besides, it looks like this is a cut & paste from his website, which may make it a copyvio. Koweja 21:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 15:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some problems with these quotes from this guitarist: 1) they're a fairly inane collection; 2) they tend to lack context or point; 3) they come across as awkward translations. - InvisibleSun 05:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closed: 06:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. - InvisibleSun 05:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Dev920 21:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless original, pithy, sourced quotes added. I'd have to agree that nothing in the current article is worth saving. Doesn't this musician have some memorable lyrics? Or should they be placed in a Freak Kitchen article? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. - the points InvisibleSun made are pretty solid.delete--McNoddy 14:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ~ UDScott 14:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Jeffq.--Poetlister 18:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I would say that lyrics should go in the Freak Kitchen article, unless it is work performed solo. Unless meaningful (and sourced) quotes can be added, delete. Koweja 04:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and JeffQ. We need now documentation about notability? --Aphaia 07:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above even though Wikipedia has an article.--Jusjih 07:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 15:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another wrestler page. No sources, no value, no point. - InvisibleSun 04:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closed: 05:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. - InvisibleSun 04:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per InvisibleSun's succinct nomination. Just to be thorough, though, I'll reconsider for original, pithy, sourced quotes (not that we've gotten any yet for wrestler articles). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep no sources, no, but that isn't a crieria for deletion. I think this one is different from the other ones in that the quotes themselves are numerous and quite long, and actually witty in some of them. Maybe cleanup and sourcing, but deletion seems inappropriate here. Dev920 09:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You raise an interest point, Dev920. Sourcing certainly isn't an official deletion criterion, and probably shouldn't be. Wikimedia articles nearly always contain some unsourced material, and many (especially at Wikiquote) have nothing but unsourced material, but the usual approach is to tag it as unsourced. WP usually uses {{fact}} and {{unreferenced}} tags, but WQ's problems are so severe that we've adopted "Sourced" and "Unsourced" headings to draw the distinction for our more discrete material. (WP prose can be hard to sift for sourced/unsourced material, but quotes are basically either one or the other.) One reason, I think, for the trend to include sourcing as an informal "requirement" is that many of the articles listed here have subjects whose quotability is so suspect that sourcing not only provides verifiability but also indicates that a respectable publisher actually finds the quotes interesting enough to quote them, giving us a useful secondary source for arguments of quoteworthiness. At least that's my observation. Adding the "sourced" demand to VfD votes should probably be taken as an opinion of the editor that the article isn't worth saving unless this groundwork is done, even if the quotes seem interesting and/or original. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Honestly, I'm getting tired of all the wrestler heat. Just because he's a wrestler doesn't mean his page should deleted. Wrestlers are people, too, you know? I'll never understand it. Maybe people enjoy looking quotes up of their favorite wrestlers. And sure, Chris Bosh says controversial things. But it definitely doesn't deserve a deletion. You don't have to be wrestling fans. But you have to understand that they are people, too. Bosh is one of the hardest workers in the Indy scene today. Chris Bosh is no different than George W. Bush. He deserves more respect than this. "Another wrestler" isn't a good excuse. Bosh's quotes are actually entertaining, unlike Prudius and a couple others. And if you want a source where these quotes came from, here you go. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fatudtPwdw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elaPr038XmI So no, these quotes are not made up. It'll be a travesty if this page is deleted for a main reason of "another wrestler". I find that very offensive, as I will be going pro, soon.TPO 11:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.192.69.239 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry you feel that way, TPO, but the "wrestler heat" comes from the fact that wrestler articles, without apparent exception, fail Wikiquote's inclusion guidelines on three points:
    1. They are often just random statements, not anything that anyone outside of avid wrestling fans would find remotely interesting or memorable.
    2. The vast majority of them aren't the least bit original, except for the names involved.
    3. None of them have reliable sources. You should read the link to see what we mean by "reliable", but basically, it means that a respectable, established publisher has quoted the person. This is how we determine accuracy, not by personal attestation, nor by YouTube material, because anyone can post anything to YouTube. (Or do you believe there is actually a movie called Brokeback to the Future? There's an amusing YouTube video trailer for it, after all.)

    If VfD participants seem a little cross or even insulting at times, it's because we despair of ever finding a good wrestler article. Theoretically, someone must have said something original and pithy, and there should be established media that must have quoted them, but we have yet to see any editors dig up this information and cite it.

    It's not quite the same genre, but take a look at Mr. T. This article contains a number of quotes with specific, reliable sources. (Currently, the Playboy article mention isn't sufficiently specific, but it shouldn't be hard to find the article title.) There are a number of quotes that don't strike me as particularly memorable there, either, and they should probably be removed. But at least the editors are trying to source the quotes. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, I see what you're saying. The Mr. T thing was a very good point. But this is Independent wrestling we're talking about, not mainstream wrestling. While you have good points, there's no way that's not enough proof that Chris Bosh said those quotes. Those are ripped straight from the DVD. Plus, I have DVDs to prove he said those, and even more quotes. Users do upload fake trailers to YouTube (like the mentioned Brokeback to the Future). But there's enough proof that Bosh said those. There's really no other reliable sources, other than asking Chris Bosh himself, www.prowrestlingguerrilla.com. You can contact him there, as he's one of the owners of the promotion. He should be easy to reach. He's a nice guy and easy to communicate with. There would be no better reliable source, if the YouTube videos weren't good enough. Plus, this is an Independent wrestling promotion. Not every wrestling fan would know these things, mainly, the smarks that look deep into it and get into the Indy scene. That's why it would be really hard to find a reliable source, if you know what I mean. TPO 1:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

    —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.192.69.239 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

    • Citing a specific DVD could be considered a reliable source, although it would be best to cite a scene that allows readers to find the place where the quote is made for verification, which is a critical part of Wikimedia editing. However, there is still a need to quote something more than just unoriginal bragging and insults. It's hard to make a case that any of this is memorable. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I was reading some of this guys quotes and thought no way wrestlers talk like this, but I'd have to agree with Dev920 after reading Boshes wikipedia article this acticle seems different but it needs a lot of work --McNoddy 14:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as I don't see anything very meorable, and certainly nothing properly sourced. ~ UDScott 14:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete yet another duff wrestler page.--Poetlister 18:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Duff page, as has been observed. No attribution of quotes and no intro. If you've got sourced quotes which make sense to people who don't know anything about pro wrestling, then you can try again to write a page about Chris Bosh. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 18:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sourced, non memorable.--Aphaia 05:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, guys. Seriously, what other source do you want? This is an independent wrestler, not a mainstream wrestler, which means there will be no coverage or quotes in magazines or elsewhere. This page is for entertainment purposes, mainly for the independent wrestling fans. Besides, keeping and cleaning it up wouldn't hurt anything. What's the obsession with getting rid of wrestlers' profiles? (Besides the Prudius one, of course. That wasn't even entertaining.) What do you think the comedian pages are for? Exactly, comedy. And Chris Bosh is a comedy style wrestler. He's a very good promo worker. At least these quotes have humor in them. Sure, some of the quotes are a little controversial. But you can clean it up if you want. You saw the videos. What other proof do you want? Like I said, if you're that into it, ask Bosh himself. There's nothing else I can say. 01:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    • There are plenty of websites that are provided for the entertainment of the fans of any subject, including independent wrestling fans. That is not Wikiquote's purpose. Wikiquote is a collection of memorable quotes, not just anything that someone spouts, even if it's well-sourced. For example, literally millions of people have introduced themselves like Bosh is quoted as doing: "Bosh... Chris Bosh." The only notable such intro is by James Bond, for whom it is a trademark phrase. Everyone else is just copying it. Even famous people saying they're peeing and having sex isn't something any quote compendium is likely to consider memorable. If you can find any mainstream sources that find any of these quotes worth reporting, you may have an argument to keep those very select quotes. But the editors voting "delete" are, from long experience, registering their belief that this isn't going to be possible. These quotes fail what I now think of as a "MySpace quote test", after a line from Dan Tynan at PC World (see my user page for details): "And in a place where 'U are soooooooo hot!!!' passes for wit, MySpace isn't doing much to elevate the level of social discourse." Stuff like this just isn't worth recording for posterity. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, add introduction and a link tag to Wikipedia.--Jusjih 07:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: delete. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 23:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As with Mike Emrick, above, none of the quotes on this sportscaster's page are particularly original or memorable. ~ UDScott 21:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closed: Result: Delete. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 23:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unless sourced, pithy quotes are added. ~ UDScott 21:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. - InvisibleSun 21:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Aphaia 13:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I would have to agree with u guys--McNoddy 14:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Tyrenius 00:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per UDScott. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Poetlister 18:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: speedy delete, unremarkable subject. Hoax article. Only notability claim is manifestly false. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is undoubtedly a hoax and is actually a non-notable person (and the quark was not discovered by this person). ~ UDScott 14:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closes: 15:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. ~ UDScott 14:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The discovery of the Quark was a shared experience (see Wikipedia). This article is a hoax, probably getting at somebody's physics teacher. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 14:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Aphaia 15:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - hoax or non-notable either way should go. Dev920 16:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: delete. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 23:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to their Wikipedia page (created yesterday by the same person who created this article), this is a group, formed in the fall of 2006, who have a demo to be released in April 2007 and are "currently looking for a drummer." In addition to the doubtful notability factor, there is the problem of what looks like the entire lyrics to songs. This page would have been speedily deleted but for the claim, however temporary, of a Wikipedia article. - InvisibleSun 02:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closed: Result: Delete. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 23:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. - InvisibleSun 02:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not only does the WP article basically prove this band's current non-notability, but the editor's username suggests the article creator is one of the bandmembers, making both articles a conflict of interest. I've nominated the WP article for deletion as well. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Is it an advertisement? We as non-profit project cannot accept that. --Aphaia 11:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's intended as an advertisement. I believe it's just a bandmember who doesn't realize that Wikimedia doesn't collect information on subjects not yet shown to be notable. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Quick --McNoddy 12:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. - not-notable. Dev920 16:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Deceased has now been closed, with the result of speedy deletion #A7, their equivalent of our "Unremarkable subject". By our standards, the article actually asserts non-notability (as I mention above), so we can probably follow suit. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. ~ UDScott 01:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.--Jusjih 17:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly fails notability.--Poetlister 17:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A feeble pair of quotes for this video game page. - InvisibleSun 19:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closes: 20:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. - InvisibleSun 19:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unhelpful quotes without context. - Dev920 20:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. ~ UDScott 01:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. this made me laught --McNoddy 12:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: nom says it all.--Poetlister 17:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unlikely source of any memorable quotes. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to place a translation request tag on this page; but after checking out the Wikipedia article, it would appear that this comic book does not have any English language circulation, making its inclusion on English Wikiquote rather pointless. - InvisibleSun 19:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closes: 20:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. - InvisibleSun 19:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - needing translation in itself is not a problem, is it? Are the quotes themselves actually interesting? Dev920 20:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: What language is this actually in? It isn't Italian, it looks to me like it could be Croatian. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is the English Wikipedia; yes, I think it is Croatian, certainly some Slavonic language.--Poetlister 15:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. ~ UDScott 17:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and ban substantial quotes which can't be understood by English speakers. Tyrenius 00:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per InvisibleSun argument on non-English world notability. I'm happy to include non-English quotes as long as they or their sources have notability in the English-speaking world and have sourced translations, but that doesn't seem likely here. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have two grounds: Bangface seems non-notable, and none of the quotes seems remotely worth while.

• Vote closes: 16:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)--Cato 15:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. You might have added lack of verifiability to the charge sheet as well. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Why are promotional slogans on banners notable? Dev920 16:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain I am the person who entered this page onto Wikiquote, I'm not entirely sure what "non notable" means, but should you want verification of all slogans you should go to bangface gallery and use the rave selector to pick a specific event. All slogans were taken from here.
  
  As for none of the quotes seeming remotely worthwhile, this is entirely subjective. While some of the slogans may seem to be obscure, profane or non-sensical, this is entirely down to a lack of familirity with the context in which they appear. In particular, the lifestyle affirmation statements might not mean much to those who do not follow that particular lifestyle, but hold a particular meaning to those who do. For example, HARDCORE UK RAVER, I'M A JUNGLIST, BREAKCORE DANCER and TERRORCORE GIVES ME WIDE ONS will hold particular meaning to those who appreciate, Hardcore, Jungle, Breakcore and Terrorcore.
  
  Lastly I wish to address the challange to whether promotional slogans are notable. Firstly, I would submit that they are not "promotional" as they do not advertise the event in particular, and secondly, should that be rejected, it should be noted that there is an entire section devoted to advertising slogans here: Slogans. On both grounds, as well as the ones listed previously, I would submit that the banner slogans are notable and should remain. Astraboy 17:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless trimmed to a pithy subset and reliably sourced. Astraboy makes some interesting points. Allow me to address them individually:

  Verification: We definitely want a means to verify quotes, but the cited webpage is neither independent of the event nor especially notable (Alexa rank > 2.3 million, more obscure than many personal websites we've disallowed in the past). This renders it unreliable by Wikimedia standards.

  Notability: The subject appears to be arguably notable, but that doesn't automatically mean that we should expect pithy quotes about it. Proper notability evidence would include independent coverage of the event. I note that Wikipedia's article doesn't have any independent sources, either.

  Worthwhile: Personally, I don't llke that term because it is obviously subjective. I prefer "pithy" — "having substance and point", "tersely cogent", "concise and full of meaning" (per Merriam-Webster Online and Wiktionary). In other words, it says something full of impact and meaning in very few words. I add the qualification of "original", because people are constantly reiterating ideas that have been said by others. In these regards, most of the current quotes have little meaning and are frequently unoriginal. To the expected argument that they mean something special to the participants, Wikiquote does not collect inside jokes and catchphrases for small groups of people. (2000 participants makes for a great party, but not necessarily a Wikiquote article.)

  Banners and slogan: Wikiquote does not collect these, as a rule. We do indeed have an article on Advertising slogans, but it is a terrible example of a Wikiquote article. The only "quotes" there that are properly sourced are the two I added myself. (Three others claim sources, but none of them are effective.) It's also an excuse to add any ad anyone ever came up with. It should be mercilessly trimmed itself. But one bad article does not justify another.

  Conflict of interest: Given the quoted slogan "WHERE'S ASTRABOY?", I am also concerned that the editor has a conflict of interest here, and may be trying to promote the event.

  All of these factors leave me inclined to support deletion. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per Jeffq's response. ~ UDScott 01:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. - Wikiquote shouldn't be a place for pages that are meaningful only to initiated cliques. For each of our readers, there will always be many pages of no particular interest; no page, however, should be like a door barred to entry. - InvisibleSun 02:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete its like a huge advert --McNoddy 12:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retain Jeff, thanks for answering my questions. Its worth stating that I am not trying to promote the event, I am a writer who's specialism is dance music events, but I have no particular affiliation with the event in question, proof of which can be seen in my work which can be viewed here Rave reviews. The "WHERES ASTRABOY?" slogan was actually showcased at an event that I was not at and was brought by a member of the public and not one of the organisers.

As well as that, I wish to address the accusation that the slogans are of no particular interest. I submit that ALL quotes are of no particular interest to those who are not interested in the subject matter. For exampleTop_Gear#The_Stig The Stigs entry is completely impenetrable to those who have not watched top gear after series 3, yet it is inlcuded. Quotes by there very nature need context and will lack meaning unless they do. With this in mind I will endeavour to reliably source every quote I have inlcuded. It may take a while, but it'll be worth it.

Its also worth noting that this is my first ever wikiquote and wikipedia entry and as such I freely admit that it needs tidying up a little. With that in mind, I would like an opportunity to reliably source and subcatagorise the entries I have made as I believe they are valid entries and should remain in line with what Jeffq said, I.E. unless trimmed to a pithy subset and reliably sourced. I'll do my best and hopefully it will be acceptable to you all. Astraboy

NOTE: above vote struck as duplicate. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astraboy, I'm afraid that, in Top Gear, you cite yet another good example of a bad Wikiquote article, of which there are many. If we had 10 or 20 times the regular editors we currently have, we'd no doubt find many of these articles trimmed and edited to standards or deleted, but we must work with the resources we have. Thank you in advance for your efforts. I'm not sure they'll save the article, but I'll be sure to check in later to see the results and figure if a compelling argument, based on those standards, can be made to keep it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--Poetlister 15:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retain Jeff, I am still interested in saving the article by ammending it to acceptable standards, yet the articles I have cited dont seem to be acceptable to your standards. Would you be able to point me in the direction of an article of an acceptable standard so I can base any ammendments using it as a yardstick? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Astraboy

NOTE: above vote struck as duplicate. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astraboy, I have struck two of your three votes because each user is only permitted a single vote. I assume you mistakenly thought that continuing dialog required some kind of bold position when started, but this is not how it works. If you have additional comments, you should simply post them after the latest comments, as I am doing for yours. Use colons (:) to indent your posts — one colon per indentation — to set them off from others' comments. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to give you a suitable recommended article because, as far as I can recall, we have no other "event" articles. It's hard to imagine even globally famous events producing worthwhile quotes, as opposed to mere banners or slogans, but if they could, they would likely be sourceable in the mainstream press, or the trade press for an appropriate genre. To give you an idea of the difference between reliably sourced and "unsourced", consider Eric Shinseki. That article currently has 2 quotes sourced from major publications, one sourced from a Defense Department documentation website, and one from Senate testimony that is considered "unsourced" because, although it gives the venue and the date, it provides no published source for this information. A reliable source must be a specific document published by a professionally edited or otherwise well-respected publisher. (See w:Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more details.) In the case of an event like this, the logical sources would be well-known papers like The Times, entertainment-industry magazines, or the like. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Retain Please?! Bye bye Bangface Wikiquote FRAGOR FACIES NUNQUAM EMORIT
  • Struck 3rd duplicate of vote, after explicit statement not to make these duplicate votes. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: delete. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless pair of quotes from this wrestler. - InvisibleSun 07:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closed: Result: Delete. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. - InvisibleSun 07:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. ~ UDScott 01:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Aphaia 12:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete like most wrestler pages.--Poetlister 15:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless original, pithy, sourced quotes added. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article has little to no value. --La gloria è a dio 17:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 04:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A page for an 18th century portrait-painter. It includes only one quotation, which is certainly about Aikman and the poet Allan Ramsay, but according to the National Galleries of Scotland is by Sir John Clerk of Penicuik. I suspect it would be difficult to find a worthwhile quote by Aikman. Antiquary 22:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closed: 23:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. - InvisibleSun 03:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. ~ UDScott 01:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless we can find quotes by Aikman--Poetlister 15:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep I've tidied it up, added the source and the portrait in question. It's a credible little article, a small human byway of history and something of delight for any reader. If in the sad event of this not being kept, then it should at least be moved to Allan Ramsay, for whom I'm sure Poetlister will soon be bursting with quotes, but I would prefer it here, even if no other items are sourced for Aikman (who is a well known artist). Tyrenius 01:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: A single quote by someone else, with no apparent prospect for quotes from the subject (portrait artists not generally known for any of their quotes, however worth they may be for an encyclopedia article), I don't see this current title as useful. I'd agree to a move to Allan Ramsay, per Tyrenius, if someone expects to add quotes for this person in the next week. (We could extend the vote if we get such a promise.) One other obvious alternative is moving to John Clerk (or John Clerk of Penicuik to match WP's article), since it's actually his quote. I didn't turn up any obvious additional quotes to make an immediate case for the move, but here are 3 extant works that may provide some useful material:
  • History of the Union of Scotland and England (ISBN 090624515X)
  • Memoirs of the Life of Sir John Clerk of Penicuik (1892; Google Books digital copy available)
  • Leo Scotiae Irritatus and Other Cantatas (audio CD)

  Again, if someone thinks they can drum up something useful, I'd rather extend the discussion than just delete the article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment John Clerk of Penicuik is perfect. I've moved the article there and added quotes. I've left the redirect for now, so the VfD link works. I've discovered his father was also called by the same name. See w:Talk:John Clerk of Penicuik. It needs to be confirmed that the right quote is attributed to the right person. Tyrenius 07:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reverted the move, which shouldn't be done during an active VfD discussion. Let's wait for the results, please. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak move to John Clerk of Penicuik. I'm not sure the quotes now added to the article are worth keeping — I don't think we want to add not especially memorable quotes just to say we have some — but there does seem to be some potential. As I mention above, we might want a vote extension to consider this. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For those unfamiliar with the premise of this show, it asks viewers to send in humorous home-video clips which it rebroadcasts, offering prizes for the "best" in each episode. As such, the format of the show doesn't really lend itself to being quoted, or to having very many memorable quotes. The quotes currently present on the page include the lyrics to the theme song, as well as the (oft-repated) closing words of the show, which include what organizations produced it. This is hardly memorable or quotable. —LrdChaos (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closes: 20:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott 20:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Wikiquote is not a TV-show archive, it's a collection of select, memorable quotes. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. - InvisibleSun 21:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. - opening and closing comments do not seem that notable. Dev920 22:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Aphaia 12:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and I'm tempted to paraphrase the late Kerry Packer's opinion in relation to the Australian version (look it up if you're interested). Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yet another "not worthwhile"--Poetlister 15:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of the quotes on this sportscaster's page are particularly original or memorable; it seems that many of them are listed simply because they're said often or in reponse to the same situtations. —LrdChaos (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closes: 20:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless trimmed to original, pithy, sourced quotes. Even catchphrases should be sourced. If one cannot cite a particular broadcast, one should be able to get a magazine or periodical citation if it really is a memorable catchphrase. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. ~ UDScott 21:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. - InvisibleSun 21:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Aphaia 13:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Difficult to see anything worthwhile.--Poetlister 15:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three of the four quotes on this page are completely about this person's music, and while the fourth does actually quote the person, the whole quote also talks about other things and the portion quoting the person includes only two questions, neither of which are at all original or memorable outside of the larger passage. —LrdChaos (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closes: 20:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: This is another case of someone copying or transferring quotes from a Wikipedia article into a corresponding Wikiquote article. In this case, this is one of several that Rmrfstar (talk · contributions) has performed in the past 6 weeks. I've asked them to include explicit WP article links in edit summaries or article talk pages, based on a discussion I had with Cbrown1023 and Fang Aili (see the last few posts of User talk:Fang Aili#newbie questions) about avoid GFDL violations in these informal transwikis. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. These quotations would only be suitable if we created an "About Cesare Pugni" section and included them there. It wouldn't do, however, to have a page with an About section and nothing else besides. - InvisibleSun 03:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not worthwhile in its present form.--Poetlister 18:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This video game page contains a probably-copyvio number of quotes, of which most are unoriginal and unmemorable. —LrdChaos (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closes: 20:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless quotes trimmed to a pithy subset and the specific sourcing somehow identified. I'm uncomfortable that we have so many electronic game (EG) pages coming up for deletion, but they are unquestionably filled with inanity and hard to verify by any reliable means. I would hope that we could establish some guidelines about how to write a proper EG quote article, but our regular editors (myself included) haven't seen this as a priority, and our EG editors haven't shown any initiative in trying to create such a guideline. Until we address this, I suspect all our EG articles are vulnerable to a reasonable deletion case. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. ~ UDScott 21:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. - InvisibleSun 21:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not worth keeping.--Poetlister 17:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Likely hoax. See discussion on Matthew's World above. ~ UDScott 19:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closes: 20:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

• Delete. ~ UDScott 19:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. - InvisibleSun 21:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The discussion UDScott mentions is permanently located at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Matthew's World. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my comment above.--Poetlister 17:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 00:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blanked as copyvio; appears to be the complete lyrics to a song. —LrdChaos (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closes: 16:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, unless trimmed to only a few lines from the song - and then probably moved to a page for the artist. ~ UDScott 16:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, until proper quotes can be provided. Hustle & Flow is actually a notable film, however page that currently consists of lyrics of one copyrighted song is unacceptable. Dev920 01:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. - InvisibleSun 01:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete once. I don't think it is preferable to keep a copyvio revision in history, when we can restart it easily & not giving up piles of contributions of months. --Aphaia 08:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Trim and put on lyricist's page--Poetlister 18:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless turned into an article about the film, for several reasons. First, song articles just don't work in Wikiquote's scheme, as they invite copyvio. Second, w:Hustle & Flow is about the film. Third, All Music Guide credits "composition" of the song to Haystak and "Pistol" (another rapper), so it's unclear who is the lyricist. What we can source is that this is a song in the film, so excerpts can be safely and accurately placed here if it's made a film article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: Kept. Cbrown1023 talk 00:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While Euclid is certainly notable, the sole quote present on the page is from a third-party and doesn't include any direct quote. —LrdChaos (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closes: 16:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep For many ancient people, specially pre-Socrates philosophers (All of "their" quotes were recorded by later people, like Platon, Aristotel and other philosophers) we need to rely on indirect source like that, and "no royal road to geometry" is the most famous his quote. Euclid is also the case. Or you would like to have his fifth axiom (There is only one direct line who run through two points)? --Aphaia 15:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's fine to have another person recording and reporting quotes, but only as long as what they're reporting are actually the quotes, otherwise they're just paraphrasing and the quote belongs to the later author, though the idea may still belong to the original source. In this case, the lack of quotation marks (which I don't believe was just an oversight, given the phrasing) indicates to me that what is being presented is not Euclid's words, which is supported by the "About Euclid" section header. —LrdChaos (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I also found this quote cited in Bartlet's as “There is no other royal path which leads to geometry,” said Euclid to Ptolemy, from Commentary on Euclid’s Elements, book ii. chap. iv. Perhaps this source should be used instead of the one currently on the page. ~ UDScott 16:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm it seems not "direct source" but to be taken from a commentary (Elements is his book, Commentary might be not, so not worthy to replace with the current one, but put side by side? Or it may be even the possibility the commentary Bartlet's relied is the same author no we're quoting from. --Aphaia 21:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I might eventually add a few quotes from his works, but its not a top priority for me, and this one very famous quote/anecdote should be sufficient for now. ~ Kalki 22:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Even for modern people, famous quotes are often recorded by third parties.--Cato 22:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a well-known quotation and Euclid is apparently the originator.--Poetlister 18:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As LrdChaos says, the issue is the sole current quote. I believe that the problem is one of formatting and citation. Other quote compendiums tend to cite the quote as "there is no royal road to geometry", an ancient aphorism whose mellifluous English translation has been reused in other notable quotes. (Examples: Freud's "The interpretation of dreams is the royal road to a knowledge of the unconscious activities of the mind."; Gerard Manley Hopkins's "It is a happy thing that there is no royal road to poetry. The world should know by this time that one cannot reach Parnassus except by flying thither.") As Aphaia points out, many "quotes" from ancient Greeks are merely citations by others. We could probably attribute the expression directly to Euclid and source it with "Quoted by whomever; cited in whatever" or something similar. I believe we can do this for a famous ancient Greek philosopher/scientist without opening floodgates to unreasonably indirect quotations "from" others. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep just as we have done with the quote of Appius Claudius Caecus et al. After all, some of the most celebrated people of the ancient world are known to us only through what others have told of them: Socrates, the Buddha, Confucius, Jesus. In their case, however, since they were quoted in the first person, we don't think of it as an issue. As far as sourcing, I don't think there is any essential difference between "Alexander said" and "This is what Alexander said," followed by Alexander's words in a first-person guise. - InvisibleSun 21:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 00:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pro wrestler page with the usual issues of unsourced, unoriginal quotes. —LrdChaos (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closes: 16:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ UDScott 16:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. - InvisibleSun 22:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. - Dev920 01:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wrestler pages are rarely useful and this is certainly not an exception!--Poetlister 18:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless original, pithy, sourced quotes added. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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