User:Jeffq/Experiments/VFDA

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search

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

The result was: delete. — MosheZadka 20:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

"Broken" pages [edit]

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

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

The result was: delete. — LrdChaos 15:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (seven votes to delete, no dissent). —LrdChaos 15:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - There's been a lot of single quotes made into pages lately, notable or otherwise. Perhaps a note on the page-does-not-exist page telling people that pages should be for the source(s) of the quotes, not the quote itself would help cut down on this? - Koweja 03:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • We can update "MediaWiki:Noexactmatch" to say something like "If this is a particular quote you wish to add, please add it to an appropriate person, show, or theme article instead of creating an article just for the quote itself." I invite other thoughts on this subject. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. —LrdChaos 04:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 121a0012 04:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 12:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Robert 12:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

24 [edit]

  • Roboaction put a vfd tag on this in December but may not have listed it here. It was blanked by its creator and never had any quotes. Rmhermen 01:56, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • VOTE CLOSED. Results: Delete (2 Deletes, 1 implicit Delete, no dissent, no change to article). — Jeff Q (talk) 03:55, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone adds quotes in next week or two. I love this show, but have a problem with content-free pages. (I'd add quotes myself, but I usually only contribute when I can verify quotes, and I have none from this excellent show.) If it's deleted, I'll put it back on the "requested" list of Television shows, so it won't be forgotten. — Jeff Q (talk) 07:16, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone adds quotes before the vote is closed. --Aphaia 09:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: merge with 3rd Rock from the Sun. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

3rd Rock From The Sun [edit]

Two reasons to delete this:

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

— Koweja 03:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Vote closed. Result: merge with 3rd Rock from the Sun (2 Merges; 1 Delete). I have merged the Dialogue section into the latter article and posted a warning to Talk:3rd Rock from the Sun to warn editors that this material will be severely edited down soon unless someone does some copyediting and formatting that make the quotes a proper Wikiquote article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge, perhaps with some trimming, with 3rd Rock from the Sun. ~ UDScott 12:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge, although if I'm involved in the merge, I may mercilessly reduce the material. I don't like to add quotes from IMDb unless I can review the episodes to correct the expected mistakes, and I don't have 3rd Rock to review. I advise interested parties to merge what they will before the Grim Reaper's scythe descends. ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 05:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

4 Strings [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent; not a single edit made to make any of the articles even minimally useful.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless quotes are added. ~ UDScott 17:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all except for any whose subjects are properly identified with working WP links and sourced quotes are added. Past experience with this user has shown that he just makes stuff up so he can create articles. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — MosheZadka 00:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

  • Vote closed: Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 00:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I also tweaked the input box for proverbs, calling it "proverb collections", which will hopefully make a little clearer what we expect a proverb article to be. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete--Aphaia 18:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: keep. — Jaxl 21:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

A Course in Miracles [edit]

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

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

The result was: Deleted. — Jeffq 07:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

  • Vote closed. Result: Deleted (3 Deletes; no dissent; apparent enthusiastic consensus to delete all completed transwikis). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I have completed the deletion of all cited speech articles after confirming they have been properly logged and transferred to Wikisource. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete:--Aphaia 8 July 2005 03:04 (UTC)
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 8 July 2005 05:44 (UTC)
  • Comment: What about A Tryst With Destiny? ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 8 July 2005 05:44 (UTC)
  • Comment: Another one for the list: I have a Dream ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 8 July 2005 08:14 (UTC)
  • Comment: yet another: Installation Speech (Adrienne Clarkson) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 8 July 2005 09:31 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Tuez-les tous; Dieu reconnaitra les siens." ("Kill them all; for (wikisource) knoweth them that are His.") [after Arnaud-Amaury, Abbot of Citeaux, 1209, when asked by the Crusaders what to do with the citizens of Beziers who were a mixture of Catholics and Cathars. See w:Albigensian Crusade for this story] ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 8 July 2005 07:13 (UTC)
  • Comment: We are better to reorganize this request? I thought it would be better to review some of them and go ahead gradually, but there are at least ten similar pages (and perhaps more). See Special:Ancientpages #15-#32.--Aphaia 8 July 2005 08:20 (UTC)
    • Yes, I'd like to do them all in one go, and forget about it. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 8 July 2005 09:31 (UTC)
  • Speech to the Troops at Tilbury, The Gettysburg Address, Whiskey Speech too ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 8 July 2005 12:10 (UTC)
  • Delete them all. Okay, folks, this is getting ridiculous. This is our third attempt in a few months to delete articles against transwiki policy, and yet no one has discussed this issue where policy could be changed — Help talk:Transwiki or Category talk:Transwiki — except myself and Rmhermen. Therefore, I will take a "delete" consensus on this vote as an consensus to change Wikiquote policy to permit the speedy deletion of all transwikied articles, which defies m:Transwiki policy, but is in reality the common practice. Any objections may be raised at Help talk:Transwiki#Deleting transwikied articles. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I think this speaks, more than anything, to the fact that I (at least, possibly others) were not even aware of this previous discussion. Thank you, Jeff, for pointing to that discussion. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: As I just noted at Help:Transwiki#Deleting transwikied articles, my memory is faulty. Help:Transwiki (which I wrote — duh!) already includes a speedy-deletion step for articles that have been successfully transwikied. From now own, we can just delete them (without VfD) once the transwiki process has been completed. But we need to verify completion before deleting. Sorry about the confusion. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Untangling these transwikied articles is complicated. Virtually nobody is logging outgoing transwiki action as required. I have just verified and deleted every Wikisource-incoming article that was properly logged there and added logs entries for them here. Any blue links above have not been completely or properly transwikied yet, so please don't speedy-delete them. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: no consensus. — Jeffq 06:23, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A Tryst With Destiny [edit]

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

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

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

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

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


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

The result was: delete. — LrdChaos 14:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Aamir gill [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (seven votes to delete, no dissent). —LrdChaos 14:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. —LrdChaos 21:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. - InvisibleSun 21:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 121a0012 04:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Koweja 17:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Robert 02:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless evidence of notability is provided. ~ UDScott 13:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Aaron Franks [edit]

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

  • VOTE CLOSED: Result: Deleted (2 Delete [1 after close]; no dissent). Sorry 'bout the delay in effecting closure. — Jeff Q (talk) 08:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No sign of notability. — Jeff Q (talk) 01:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. --Aphaia 07:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: no consensus. — Jeffq 09:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Abortion [edit]

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

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

  • VOTE CLOSES: 12:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • VOTE CLOSES: 12:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Procedural comment: My knee-jerk reaction is to extend the discussion by one week to December 8. I feel that this article had enough prominent contributors and is on an important enough subject that a decision should not be taken lightly. Currently I don't believe we have any clear policy on who is allowed to extend votes, but in general the consensus tended to be "any sysop". If there are no objections soon, I will extend it. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 22:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Extended to December 8, as per my intention stated above. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I support the extension to my original deadline. I had pretty much expected both the fervent arguments and the extension to accomodate them anyway. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
    • VOTE CLOSED. Result: no consensus (default keep) (3 Deletes; 4 Keeps; 1 Keep struck for no proper signature; 1 Keep discounted because of improper signature followed by confusing attempts to verify and standardize; all anonymous, unsigned, and policy-violating multiple votes discounted). WELL. This may have been the sloppiest votes I've ever seen on Wikiquote. Between the irritation of the sysops at the POV editing, the cries against censorship, the illegal and occasionally indecipherable votes from anonymous editors, and the deck-stacking through freeping, I'd say I (perhaps needlessly) proved how hard it is for Wikiquote to address this subject calmly and rationally. In the end, however, there is no consensus to delete the article, and probably would have been a clear Keep consensus had more supporters voted properly. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is not possible to achieve NPOV in this article when the only frequent contributors are avowed anti-abortionists who consistently sabotage the inadequate attempts of pro-choicers and sysops to restore balance. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I'm not quite sure how I feel about this one. On the one hand, I understand that this page has become a nightmare to maintain, and yet I feel a bit uncomfortable about simply deleting it when there are some valid quotes to be found on the subject. Can we protect it instead? I know this raises other concerns -- namely that it limits the addition of new quotes (unless someone asked an admin to add it and admins would have a say over whether a quote that someone wants to add is valid), and an admin's personal bias could intrude. But again, I'm reluctant to just delete the page. I would like to hear some more discussion before rendering a vote. UDScott 21:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep : The article is a horrible mess, and is no doubt one of the single biggest "headache" articles we have here... and probably will long remain such. I think this leads most of us to simply avoid it, so much as we are able to, but I am against deleting it or protecting it permanently merely for those reasons. It is an issue about which many statements are made... and they should be given place for expression, even if one particular editor seems fixated on mis-characterizing all manner of statements in ways that will most support and promote her particular views. I am removing it from "featured article" status on the Main Page though... something I have wanted to do very early on, even before it became much of a problem, but felt uncomfortable doing merely because of my own preferences not to draw to much attention to the subject. I think most of us can agree the article itself is one of the worst, most POV-intensive, and most frustrating that we have and shouldn't be on the main page. ~ Kalki 22:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (and keep unprotected) - this is a slippery slope, in the direction of censorship. You want to delete Guns too? It's filled with quotes by people who haven't yet heard the news that the gov has nuclear weapons, and thus their guns won't protect them in case the gov becomes tyrannical. Also, my understanding is that some of the quotes there are taken straight from NRA magazines, and thus might be fraudulent - need someone who cares about this issue (and isn't lazy) to check it out. The wiki process is what people make of it. You, as an admin, have no obligation to protect a page against (what you consider to be) POV sabotage. If all the people who wish to contribute are anti-abortion, then you can assume that all the people on earth are anti-abortion. If other people start to contribute, and complain to admins about anti-abortion vandals (e.g. vandals who delete quotes, or don't accept majority vote), only then you should make the effort and help, by banning vandals perhaps. If neither you nor anyone else wish to make the effort and remove the "sabotage" from the page, then you should leave it as it is, and wait for people who do wish to invest their time in this page to do so. iddo999 23:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Jeff, perhaps try to see a positive side too: if the sabotage is so horrible, then keeping it as it is would probably increase the probability that other people who come across this page and have different views on abortions would start editing it, and then perhaps also edit other wikiquote pages. So don't try too hard to guard pages against POV sabotage, unless it's a page that you personally care about right now. Let the wiki process fulfill itself, with perhaps the positive side-effect of gaining new wikiquote editors. iddo999 23:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The comments of the others echo many of my feelings about whether or not it is approrpiate to remove a page simply because it is controversial and is subject to a lot of heavy maintenance to keep it viable and neutral (as much as possible). I remain uncomfortable with the idea of deleting a page when there are numerous valid quotes associated with a topic - it smacks too much of censorship to me. As painful as this page can be to us all, I think it should remain. UDScott 23:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah? This page is painful for all of us? I have no idea what you and Kalki are talking about. How can it be painful if I've never even bothered to look at it? iddo999 22:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and replace with a message summarising the reason, and protect it. I've thought a lot on this issue. The page, as it is right now, is pure crap as far as I'm concerned. I do not see it as becoming non-crap without significant work, but I am not prepared to do the work myself. Here is my suggestion: blank all the page, keeping only something like "This page is now protected since no version was of sufficiently high quality. If you are interested in helping, please feel free to work on a prototype of this page in your userspace, and make a note of it in the talk page. On your prototype, you are free to insist on only editing it yourself or you can allow others to edit it. If some prototype achieves wide consensus in the talk, please alert the Admin team so they can instate the consensus version and unprotect the page." Any thoughts? ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 21:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The solution is not to censor accurate quotes, but rather to edit out any inaccuracies and edit in quotes that satisfy your own view of balance. Not sure how a quote page is supposed to be balanced, though. As long as the quotes are accurate and pertinent, they ought to be on the page. Quotes generally have a POV. Abortion is controversial, so POV of the actual quotes will be strong in many cases. Presenting those POVs to readers is the goal of a quote page for a controversial topic - to see what views people have on that controversy. What is the actual problem? Are any quotes inaccurate? Have quotes from others with different POVs been deleted? Have people not been permitted to add quotes with oter POVs? Or are the quotes that people find objectionable simply ones that expose the weakness of one POV and highlight the strength of another? Again, the solution is to add quotes that represent a POV you think is under-represented. I use the page as a source for abortion quotes because the quotes listed are amazing. I cannot believe that abortion providers and feminists have said some of the things they have said - but I have verified each and every one of them, and they all come from reliable sources. What is the underlying basis for the disappointment some of you have with the page as it currently exists? I don't see any history of trying to work the problems out, or of being specific as to why most of the quotes are objectionable. If a quote is in the wrong section, move it to the right one. If a quote is not accurate, explain why you believe so, ask for input, and then consider removing it. Censoring the page by deleting or blanking it is simply a heavy-handed extremist tactic. Mr. Grace 21:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The problem with the page is that the only people who have time to edit it think that a quote which starts with "In no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning" should start the pro-choice section, and when people object, they cry out "then edit it to be better". However, the content should not be decided by who has more energy to invest in edit wars. This is why I feel forcing everyone to come to a consensus, and I'm pretty sure that enough will object to any "compromise" which isn't really, will finally get the edit-warriors to come to their senses. If you are interested, you could help in making the page not be crappy...that is likely to save it from deletion, even if you have to actually find quotes which do not support your POV. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 22:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
      • The content should be decided by those who wish to edit that page. If you're not one of them, then just leave it alone and wait for other people to improve it. If there're vandals who e.g. don't accept majority vote of the people who edit on that page, then we can ban them. If you don't like the content, don't wish to edit it, and still want to delete what others do there, then it's censorship. iddo999 22:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Why is that quote listed first? The protocol for a "theme" page (such as the abortion page) appears to be very simple. [1] Following it would address your concern. Mr. Grace 22:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete:
    • Let's consider that these disputes and sabatoges we're discussing here and on the Abortion article talk page have been ongoing since at least July .
    • I'll repeat the [Talk:Abortion#NPOV_and_accuracy|objections] I made on the talk page for the article:
  • Some, . . . have spammed th[e] article as well as th[e] talk page to advertise Gordon Watts's activism. A [Wikiquote:Vandalism_in_progress#Abortion|thorough complaint] about this was filed.
  • Many "quotes" are listed without links. This makes their authenticity questionable, especially because some anti-abortion organizations have been preported to publish false discredits and stories in the past (take . . . the frequently-referenced-yet-bogus "study" that attempted to imply abortions cause cancer).
  • Opinions of and interview segments with quacks and other kooks have been pushed to the top of the "Pro-choice" section. Most of the more intelligent quotations have been pushed to the bottom of that section. Some genuine pro-choice quotes that seem strong arguments for pro-choice positions were relocated to the "Indefinite" section, which is deep at the bottom of the page. This implies that fringe views are more important to read and more prominent than mainstrean ones. That organization is obviously biased, thus not a NPOV.
  • "Dismemberment and extraction" is not a medical term. Wikiquote is something of an academic nature, and so medical terminology is appropriate and unmedical pregoratives as substitutes are not.
  • The quotes from Madonna, Thomas Jefferson and the U.N. . . . were from discussions that were not about abortion. (Note that neither person has ever been known publicly to advocate against abortion.)
  • Some of the quotation from Tori Amos was not about this particular topic; note the inclusion of ". . ." in that quote. Methinks this was done to make it read like an focused ramble, thus making it seem bad.
  • One credit for each of two pro-choice quotes - each quote a common medical assertion - reads "contradicting late-term abortionist Dr. George Tiller (see below) and abortion industry spokeman Ron Fitzsimmons (see above)". (And, again, some of the "quotes" seem questionable.) This seems to indicate that some editors were trying to make the page an expose' (accurate or inaccurate) of the pro-choice movement. That's not what this page is for. And it conforms to a particular POV.
  • Some of these biased editors . . . have reversed overhauls and other edits that made the article more appropriate, particularly edits that gave it a NPOV. In those cases, they've reverted it back to versions pretty much identical to [certain user]'s versions, and administrators deemed [certain user]'s versions biased and questionable.
    • And a further [Talk:Abortion#Troll_problem.3F|objection] I made later:
Mr. Grace removed the NPOV and Accuracy tags, when none of the controversies raised were fully resolved. His explaination on the edits page was ("no explanation as to which quotes are inaccurate or biased, nor any attmpt to edit to address concerns") doesn't mean there isn't a controversy. It's not even a valid excuse; the issues have been discussed on this talk page for some time now, as Mr. Grace has probably read our detailed objections, and his edits have done only a little to address the issues we've raised. Because this issue hasn't been fully resolved - in fact, it mostly remains unresolved - I've reinserted the tags. Mr. Grace clearly knows the truth of these disputes, as he has obviously read the discussions; he certainly knew enough to attack my arguments in the NPOV & Accuracy section of this talk page.
    • And an [Talk:Abortion#Neutrality_of_quote_sources|observation] from Jeff Q, who put this better than can I:
I hope I'm not opening another can of worms here, but I see a real problem with adding sourced quotes to this article. Without any qualifications of the source, it is child's play (no pun intended) to find the most rabid pro-life or pro-choice source to quote an opponent in the worst way possible, especially if it provides an opportunity for major slanting. This occured to me when I noticed 80.42.214.120's addition of Maxine Waters' ironic quote about marching for her mother's lost right to an abortion. I found three different sources for that quote, but they were all from ultra-conservative websites who all referred to the rally at which it occured as a "pro-abortion" rally, which I rather suspect is not what it was called. That made me wonder if the quote itself was accurate, especially given some of the other supposed quotes I saw cited, which were almost certainly not correct.
In today's bleak landscape of attack journalism, one cannot trust a radical pro-life website to cite such a juicy quote accurately, any more than one would expect a NOW or other radical pro-choice website to provide anything but the most self-defeating quotes from pro-life supporters. . . .
Maxine Waters' idiotic statment was quoted by several reliable sources (Wall Street Journal, Wash Times [2] and National Review [3] - and Tucker Carlson even debated James Carville about the statement on CNN and Carville defended Waters, but did not deny she said it) - with your statement above you have proven yourself to be either a terrible researcher or to be very hasty in rushing to judgment - and perhaps to have an extreme bias against anyone with views that differ from your own (such as a website that espouses views that you think should not be voiced, or exposes certain views to be shallow. The fact that any mention of Waters' participation in the rally (where she made the idiotic statement) has been scrubbed from nearly all old media reports of the event (and even edited out of the CSPAN coverage) demonstrates the extreme bias of most "reliable" media outlets. Imagine if a conservative congressman had said something as dumb as the extreme liberal Waters did - it would be on CNN every 5 minutes for 2 weeks. Instead the mainstream media has largely hidden Waters' incoherence or stupidity from its readers and viewers to protect her and the pro-abortion facade. Mr. Grace 22:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
If it's quoted in the WSJ news section, then it's reliable. But if it was quoted by the yoyos in the WSJ op-ed section, then it's useless. WashTimes is less reliable, they even fabricate quotes by people that they like when it suits them, such as Tom Delay [4]. Carlson and Carville are also obviously useless. It's supposed to have been shown on TV? Why don't you seek for a video footage then? There're plenty of anti-abortion people with video recorders... For example, the conspiracy theories crowd managed to get the Fox News live broadcast on 9/11 where their correspondent who went on air after the 2nd plane hit the WTC said that it's a cargo plane that doesn't have windows. iddo999 01:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Not sure where this ends, as you have now pointed to an obscure blog website (that claims a certain quote is bogus) as your reliable source to note that some websties are not reliable. Ardent apologist (Carville) for all things liberal admitted that Maxine Waters made the idiotic statment. Several highly-respected media outlets also reported her rant. Not sure what your standard of proof is - seems like liberal blogs and liberal newspapers (NYT, for example) are good sources, but conservative ones are not reliable. That is a standard that is thoroughly unacceptable. Mr. Grace 06:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
The "obscure blog" links to the WashTimes article, and mentions what the Repub senator said on CNN, so it's as credible as the senator is. If you meant that the blog fabricated the senator's words, and you're too lazy to even check this out, then here [5] - but then you're probably way too lazy to seek for video footage that you claim that the big brother at C-SPAN removed into the memory hole... Getting such footage is a lot easier than 9/11 footage, because the rally was known in advance. To repeat, the WSJ news section is very reliable, much more than the NYT I'd say, but again, info from the WSJ op-ed section is useless. Do you know how that quote appeared in the WSJ? Anyway, I suggest that for now you should be graceful and remove that quote into the talk page, pending a proof. iddo999 14:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
When former White House advisor (Carville) discusses Maxine's rant (and in doing so admits the rant occurred) you find it meaningless, but when a senator fails to elaborate on why he thinks a quote was false you find it definitive as to whether the statement was made. Your standard of proof is slippery at best - and certainly biased toward getting your way. Maxine's rant was widely published in 4 well-respected publications with no retractions and therefore it is most definitely "sourced" - its not going away. The only lazy user here is the one who has claimed that the page is filled with bogus quotes, offered no proof, and then demanded the page be deleted. Mr. Grace 07:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
What do you mean by "senator fails to elaborate"? The senator said that the WashTimes fabricated the quote. What else is there to elaborate on? You want the senator to elaborate on the motives behind the decision to fabricates quotes? I just used this example to show that the WashTimes is less reliable than e.g. the WSJ. I'll assume that the point was taken. What Carville used to say on the Crossfire circus was meaningless in general, and certainly meaningless with regard to the sourcing of quotes in particular, so I have no idea why you keep coming back to that. Why don't you answer my question about how the quote appeared in the WSJ? I urge you again to be graceful and remove that quote until there's a proof for it. iddo999 11:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • As Jeff Q also put it on the same page (again, better than can I) about one abuser (sic), which I believe can accurately others editors:
She simply doesn't understand or accept that her beliefs are neither universal, nor accepted as fact. . . . she cannot be permitted to subvert it [the article/Wiki standards] in order to destroy her hated opposition either by sabotaging the organization or by overwhelming the . . . staff.
    • Let's consider the anti-choice side's insistence on continuing to do those things, and insistence on keeping the article that way or reverting it back to that way
    • Conclusion: I think the only permanent remedy would be to would to permanently protect the article, and I'm not sure if Wikiquote's administrators are willing to permanently deny us nonadministrators any editing of an article. Unless the administrators can agree to do that, then the article is like a severly medically risked patient's fetus w/ 100% chance of quick terminal illness outside the womb: sadly, it has no hope, and the best thing to do would probably be to mercifully abort it. Dr. K 06:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Yikes, all this does sound very bad... However, I consider your solution to be even worse. In general, the solution for removing quotes from dubious sources is to stop being lazy (i.e. use nothing but google?) and try to research the issue. However, it can be quite hard to prove a negative, so if the only sources appear to be fraudulent (as indeed in your examples above), then I think that it would be a good idea to remove them (into the talk page, perhaps), pending a reliable source. The solution to POV comments next to a quote is simply to remove them, because other than info that's really relevant to a particular quote, everything else should go to wikipedia - we should seek to editorialize as little as possible. If the anti-abortion crowd refuses to follow such guidelines, then you should report it to admins who will revert what they do there and perhaps ban them. But first, there should be an effort by editors of that page to create a good version - if you just leave the page to the anti-abortion crowd to do what they want there, then we can leave them alone until other people would come and try to improve it. iddo999 10:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is one of my first times using this site. It is amazing, and has been extremely helpful to me in preparing a case study on Abortion for a Medical Law & Ethics class. I was really disturbed to see that it was being considered for deletion. I believe in free speech, and that we, the public, have the right to be informed. Therefore, I equate deleting a page such as this, with an incredible amount of useful information, to "book burning." Simply because the totality of content seems weighted towards one side of an issue, is NO REASON to DELETE IT! I am NOT making this statement based on personal bias. If something is out of balance - then BALANCE IT! Put the simple facts of this question in to almost any analogy: If preparing a meal, and some parts are done before others, do you throw it ALL out? If you plant a garden, and one crop grows faster, and more abundantly than another - do you plow under the whole plot, and tell yourself "I'll try for more EQUAL growth next year..."??? Of course not! From my perspective, as new to this site, this argument seems rooted in issues other than the benefit/accuracy of the information presented. Yes, the bulk of information presented represents one position over the other ... but that doesn't make all that is there inaccurate or with out value. PLEASE, consider it a work-in-progress, and don't "burn the book" to teach someone a lesson! KellyD
    • Moved to standard format by me, including striking out the vote because it came from an anon (as per our policy that anon votes are ineligible) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    • KellyD, why do you lecture us about how you think that other people should improve the page, instead of offering to do it yourself? iddo999 18:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Perhaps what KellyD is sayingis that: 1) the page is accurate and therefore should not be censored, and 2) additional accurate quotes should be added by those who do not like the current (and accurate) content of the page, and 3) the responsibility to add aditional accurate quotes belongs to those who find the current accurate content disturbing enough to do the work.Mr. Grace 06:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
          • As I understand you, this is a misstatement of a crucial policy: writing for the enemy. The responsibility to keep NPOV and balance belongs not "to thos who find the current content disturbing", but to everyone. I realize it might be hard to add quotations which actually refute your point of view, but it is crucial for the proper functioning of the wiki. Please see my suggestion above, tantamount to deleting the page, for a way to force the various POV warriors here to seek consensus. Please note that intentional violations of NPOV are disruptive to wikiquote, which is the reason Jeff suggested the deletion, to reduce disruption. The more I hear the arguments against that decision, the more I believe he is right, since not one argument appeared relevant. Perhaps when wikiquote grows to have 20 regular editors (commited to NPOV) and 6 active administrators, we can deal with the disruption brought about by such a page. As it stands, I believe that this page draws more heat than light. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Whats with the censorshiip? Aslan
    • originally posted 2 December 2005 (UTC) (comment originally added by Mr. Grace, moved to subbullet by me) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • This is this user's only edit (done as two edits: one to add the vote, one to sign it) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 08:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Following "votes" are all by the same anon: ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep Looks ok to me
    • Keep I think it is an excellent page
    • Keep Sure, why not?
    • Keep Dont abort the abortion page!!!!
    • Keep Babies arent that cute.
    • Keep Keep it.
    • Keep I have thought long and hard on this and I say keep.
    • Keep Keeping it is a good idea.
    • Keep Keep good. Delete bad.
    • Keep I agree with many others...keep!
  • Following vote is by another anon ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • KEEP--DO NOT CHANGE A THING. You are part of an open forum that debates ideas. People DO COME HERE to get informed. DON'T HINDER THAT.
  • Short note: Wikiquote is NOT an open forum which debates ideas, it is an encyclopedia of quotations. Just in case anyone thought it is. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Anon 'vote' in a separate section moved here by me ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • "Keep"
      It's not the fault of us "neanderthal womyn oppressors" if some of the pro-choice comments look REALLY bad. If you are going to censor it now because advocates like Margaret Sanger (a racist supporter of Eugenics and Nazism) and Pete Singer (an unqualified homicidal maniac urging 'postnatal abortion' up to the age of 2) don't represent your side in the best light, you betray your bias and put the whole WIKI institution at risk as an objective resource. It's bad enough that no High School or College would (ok, should) accept Wiki as a suitable bibliography. We've got Nicolae Ceaucescu (a Communist dictator who ended up at the right end of the firing squad he used to terrorize the population) on the Pro-life side. Not exactly the kind of candidate we want but, why not? It's in the interest of fairness, isn't it?
      BTW, I've got a quote for you:
      "Because of my role in Roe v. Wade, how that decision came about, and my experiences working at abortion clinics, I can provide the Court with information and a perspective unavailable from other sources. I have a compelling interest in this litigation. My case was wrongfully decided and has caused great harm to the women and children of our nation. I have an interest in stopping that harm and I have an interest in disclosing the facts which expose the weakness of the underlying assumptions which led to that incorrect decision.
      3. Virtually the entire basis for Roe v. Wade was built upon false assumptions. No meaningful trial to determine the real facts was ever held. The misrepresentations and deceptions that plagued Roe v. Wade are presented to this Court to show why there is a dire necessity for a trial to ensure that the true facts regarding the nature of abortion and the interests of women are heard. These facts, which were neither disclosed to me in 1970 nor to the plaintiffs of this case before they had an abortion, are critical for understanding the issues involved. They point out the deficiencies not only of the procedure in Roe v. Wade, but in the Court's decision which was rendered in a vacuum devoid of findings of facts."
      Norma McCorvey's, Jane Roe of "Roe v. Wade", Affidavit to the US District Court of New Jersey.
      PS: For claiming to be unbiased, there are a lot of "anti-choicers" and "anti-abortion" epithet thrown around. Should I call you guys then, "pro-death"? It's only fair if you choose to denigrate us at every turn.
  • Keep
    • "13:46, 7 December 2005 Jwindle (adding signature of poster Jwindle who did not sign, anon below merged his comment with Jwindle's)" (this is a comment by Mr. Grace, moved to std. format by me ~MosheZadka (Talk) 15:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC))
  • The fight becomes controversial only after your fighter hits the canvas after receiving a Mike Tyson uppercut. Work and train 'em harder? Beef up your arguments? Or quit and recognize the Championship is not within your grasp? Sorry for the sports analogy. But what this is mostly about is, "If I can't win I'm going to take my ball and go home!"
    • Unsigned comment, moved to std. form by me ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would recommend to whoever closes this vote to discount any and all voters with less than 50 edits excepting the VfD page itself, Abort and Talk:Abortion. I don't suppose it will change the result of this vote (as it is going so far), but I think it would make a nice precedent, similary to how I closed the Tarmy vote, which would make at least one good thing come out of this VfD. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 16:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Your attitude is certainly no way to expand the number of active users on Wikiquote. And please do try to be more courteous when making this section look how you want it to.Mr. Grace 17:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Being "active" only on one vote and POV-warring on one page is not my idea of "active". If you wish to prove me wrong, feel free to make useful edits on a bunch of pages unrelated to abortion: we have a large number of pages which could use expansion (The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay, which I started), accuracy checks (Sherlock Holmes) or format improvements (Morton Feldman). Since the goal of VfD is to assess the will of the community, we need to have some definition of community. I truly hope, but sadly, I do not expect, that you will decide to join the community by improving wikiquote. Perhaps this will give you an idea of why the regular editors are overworked enough that they do not have time to respond to ultimatums on Talk:Abortion ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 02:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Pro-abortion rights users are perfectly free to add their quotes as well. There is no reason such an article need be censored. It's open to all. --Jakes19 06:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
    • This was the user's first edit, less than five minutes after being created. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)\
      • I spend most of my time on Wikipedia as Jakes18. I intended on creating an account here, but never got to it until a few days ago, when I saw this garbage was going on and felt it necessary. Does the Abortion article portray abortion rights supporters in a negative fashion? I think that's what most would come out with. Does it matter? No. They are true quotes. To delete them would be more or less censoring true statements you are not comfortable with. If pro-abortion rights Wikiquotians are unimpressed with the page, they are perfectly free to edit it themselves. Should we delete "Bushisms" because it sheds a negative light on GW, and that may annoy his supporters? No. --Jakes19 18:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The expiration date of this vote has passed - our busy sysops have not had the chance to tally the vote. Looks like there is no consensus to sensor the abortion page. Please do not vandalize this comment by deleting it. I am simply making a reasonable and relevant note in this section regarding this vote. Mr. Grace 20:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The large puppet contingent was due to a Freep: [6] I scanned this section and didn't see anyone enter this information, apologies if this was known. Just thought you might like to know. KillerChihuahua 23:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: UNIDENTIFIED. NO SIGNATURE


Academy Award [edit]

Non-quote expository article. Text lifted directly from two pages [7] [8] of Motion Picture Academy website, in clear violation of their copyright. — Jeff Q (talk) 09:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • VOTE CLOSED: deleted. (2 deletes, no dissent).
  • Delete. Jeff Q (talk) 09:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. We should probably develop a copyright violation procedure as well. Rmhermen 15:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 10:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

ACPOC Syndrome [edit]

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

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

The result was: kept. ~ Kalki 12:00, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Adam Margolin [edit]

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

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

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

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

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

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 20:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Adam Pearson [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (4 Deletes; 1 Keep from user whose only contribution is this vote). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. —LrdChaos 05:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've posted a note to the editor to suggest copying the quotes to his/her user page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, concur with above. ~ UDScott 12:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not delete. Adam Pearson is a notable person around this area. His words of wisdom mean a lot. Uofakevo
  • Delete. InvisibleSun 04:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — MosheZadka 17:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Address Unknown "episodes" [edit]

The following articles have been transwikied from Wikipedia:

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

  • VOTE CLOSED: Result: delete (2 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 17:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. However, if we decide the subject is notable, I favor placing any quoted material in a Max Payne subsection for the "TV show", unless and until it's proven substantial enough to merit a separate article. After all, there is no actual TV show. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete copyvios ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 07:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Adenosine triphosphate [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent; no response from creator). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 12:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It seems unlikely that we'll establish a collection of quotes on this admittedly important biological substance, but I'm prepared to be proven wrong. The way this brief description is written, and the name inexplicably attached to the end, makes me suspect that this may be a "quote" from a California middle-school student. If so, it fails a notability test. I've posted a note to the anon editor requesting more information. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Adrian Edmondson [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes; no dissent; no quotes added). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless quotes are added. ~ UDScott 18:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Don't think he has said anything notable as Ade Edmondson. Quotes could be put on The Young Ones from Vyvyan. Dbiv 18:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless quotes added. I've added a WP link to help identify the subject. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — MosheZadka 12:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Adrian Speyer [edit]

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

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

The result was: UNIDENTIFIED. NO SIGNATURE

Adult Swim [edit]

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

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

The result was: keep. — Jeffq 03:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Adventures of Chico & Guapo, The [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: keep (6 keeps; no dissent; article improved per request). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless valid quotes are added. —LrdChaos 23:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep now that quotes have been added. I'd like to see articles with no quotes made speedy-deleteable, just to further discourage people from creating pages with no quotes. —LrdChaos 22:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, see my entry above for Ghost in the shell SAC. I've restored the deleted VFD tag. ~ UDScott 13:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep now that quotes have been added. -- Robert 13:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep now. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. - InvisibleSun 22:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Koweja 12:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes [edit]

In my opinion

  1. if I recall correctly we have a policy "not to create a sort of favorite lists".
  2. and it can't be more than a dead copy of AFI's list. --Aphaia 08:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote closed: Result: Kept (4 keeps, 2 deletes) --Aphaia 8 July 2005 08:24 (UTC)
  • Delete: And I am afraid if it is copyvio too. --Aphaia 08:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep (Jeff's arguments persuaded me) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 6 July 2005 07:54 (UTC)
  • Delete: Sveden 21:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikiquote is, by its nature, a "favorite quotes" list; recent objections to "favorite lists" were more about the Favorites article that was slated for deletion and about personal lists that don't belong in main article space, whereas this is a properly sourced published list. In the U.S., copyright protects the presentation, arrangement, and supporting material of lists (i.e., the 3-hour program presenting the AFI list), but not the list itself, if it's based on an obvious order, like poll data (see Feist vs. Rural); the EU's database rights law may or may not apply, and its sui generis rationale seems ambiguous in this situation, at least as presented in the WP article. Furthermore, this list is also available on Wikipedia, where basic lists of these types (i.e., produced within copyrighted programs) have apparently passed numerous deletion and copyvio tests. (See the WP village pump archive for the latest rehashing of this issue on other such lists.) This strikes me as an obvious article that I had expected someone to add within 24 hours of the program's broadcast (as it was) and would be an obvious thing for a reader to look up here. I say we keep it unless Wikipedia (which is much more likely to get this issue right) declares such lists as copyvios. — Jeff Q (talk) 23:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nice links, thanks JeffQ. With regard to the copyvio issue, until a formal argument is presented on why copying this specific list is illegal, I don't see why it should be deleted. With regard to the other reasons given, I didn't really understand them - perhaps someone could elaborated? Sams 00:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's important! The greatest movie quotes of all time. Isn't that worth something? We are a collection of quotes and this is the most famous collection of quotes. We need to keep it.- B-101 16:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree that this list is important, but it can hardly be considered the "most famous collection of quotes", except in a Warholian sense, when it's only a few days old. ☺ — Jeff Q (talk) 17:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — LrdChaos 13:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Aiven Andrians [edit]

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

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

  • Delete. 121a0012 04:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A clarification about the Amazon link: it's for a personal (self-written) profile, not a book or other notability source. In it, he claims to have "studied all the major martial-arts systems, including secret systems used by the intelligance [sic] community", and having appeared in "the season finaly [sic] of West Wing ( 1st season )", even though IMDb seems to be missing his credit for that (or any) show. This strongly suggests the WQ article is a hoax, and the WP article is at least non-notable. (NOTE: I have just nominated the WP article for the party for deletion as well.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per InvisibleSun and Jeffq. —LrdChaos 15:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Koweja 17:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 13:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 16:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Alamela Rowan [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (5 Deletes; no dissent; no response from creator). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have added {{vanity-warn}} to the creator's talk page. ~ UDScott 14:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless user registers a username, in which case move to their user page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. - InvisibleSun 03:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a vanity page. —LrdChaos 14:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 121a0012 20:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: deleted. — MosheZadka 05:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Alan Suja [edit]

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

  • Vote closed: Result: deleted (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 14:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence provided of notability. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable, nonsense. jni 09:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 16:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Alejandro Murillo [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless evidence of notability is produced. ~ UDScott 19:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Concur with UDScott. No identification, no WP article, no obvious candidate from Google, typically insipid quotes all point to likely vanity article. (See "Jeremy Rodgers" VfD entry for other actions taken for the creator of this and that other article's common creator.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Aleksandr Maksimov [edit]

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

  • Vote closes: Deleted (2 deletes, no dissent) --Aphaia 29 June 2005 23:30 (UTC)
  • Delete MosheZadka 14:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even the three most "notable" Google citations of this name — a Ukranian music studio founder, a Russian admiral mentioned in passing in a policy studies paper, a Belarussian judge in a Red Cross contest — have thus far failed to merit a WP article or to seem particularly notable, and the single quote given sounds much more like a kid expressing teenage rebellion. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: keep. — MosheZadka 03:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Aleksis Kivi [edit]

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

  • Vote closed: Result: keep (3 keeps, no dissent, one struck out delete) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 03:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless quotes added. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've expanded the page, adding some quotes. UDScott 14:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep since it has been expanded. Kivi is a well known Finnish author. jni 16:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Deleted. — Jeffq 1 July 2005 00:17 (UTC)

Alex Michalas [edit]

  • Non-notable. Kalki questioned the user the day it was posted with no response except seven months later a different anon erased his note. Delete. Rmhermen 17:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: Deleted (3 Deletes; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 1 July 2005 00:17 (UTC)
    • Delete: No sign of notability. --Aphaia 00:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Jeff Q (talk) 00:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Kept.. — Aphaia 00:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Ali Sina [edit]

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

  • Vote closed: Result: Kept. (3 keeps, no dissent; not including one vote without signature wasn't counted) --Aphaia 00:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Because there's a wikipedia article. Sams 28 June 2005 21:00 (UTC)
  • Comment: if you think that he's not notable, why don't you also issue a wikipedia VfD? You might get responses from a broader audience this way. Sams 28 June 2005 09:29 (UTC)
    • Comment: Because I am not an active part of English Wikipedia. I am principally a Wikiquoter. I spend usually little time on English Wikipedia -- and don't want to more involved. I have already many things to do (and somehow responsible), I am not therefore interested to wider my activites. Sorry for personal talk, but I would like you to realize it is not equal to be active on English Wikiquote to be active on English Wikipedia. And I don't imagine the latter is mundatory here. --Aphaia 28 June 2005 09:33 (UTC)
      • Comment: Anyone else interested in issuing a wikipedia VfD then? I'm also not an active wikipedia user. Sams 28 June 2005 10:09 (UTC)
  • Notability does not mean likeability. Osama Bin Laden, Zaqawi, Pol Pot, or criminals like Son of Sam and Jack the Ripper are not likeable but they are mentioned in books and encyclopedias and are notable. I am fully aware that anyone who criticizes Islam is worthless for Muslims, Salman Rushie was given a death decree and his book was burned. Many bookstores carrying his book were bombed and a couple of translators of his book were assassinated. For Muslims, Rushdie is scum and his books are worthless. Whether Muslims are right about Rushdie or not is not the point. The point is that one does not have to be right or likable to be noteworthy. Many noteworthy people are just notorious. Anyone who has an opinion that is controversial and is read and discussed by a lot of people is noteworthy irrespective of the correctness or incorrectness of his views. Ali Sina is enough important at least for a group of Muslims to create an entire site, calling it after his site just to refute what he and other writers in faithfreedom.org say. Another Islamic site dedicated to Sina’s site and refuting what he says is Bismikaallahuma.com. There are at least two Islamic sites and tens of articles in other sites written by Muslims that are just to refute him and other writers in faithfreedom.org. So obviously he is not as insignificant as you claim. I have quoted the opinions of Sina’s critics and provided links to them, including those that are disparaging. Is Mr. Sina worth mentioning? A google search with “Faith freedom international” results in nearly 60,000 entries.[10] Tens of thousands more entries can be found when search is done with faithfreedom [11] and “Ali Sina” . Several important sites such as AsiaTimes.com [12] WorldNetDaily.com [13]and Frontpagemag.com [14]have written about him and several other important sites have published his articles. The point is that he is noteworthy. This does not mean he is right. I did not say that he is. I did not say Rushdie is right either. However, those who criticize Islam do not become automatically insignificant just because Muslims don’t like what they say. An encyclopedia is to provide a balanced expose of people who are noteworthy. The very fact that Mr. Zakaria, Mr. Edip Yuksel, and other prominent Muslims debated with Mr. Sina and have published their debates in their sites shows that at least they think he is important enough to be refuted. Please do not confuse noteworthiness with likeability or correctness. Sina is noteworthy because he is read by millions. He is liked by some and disliked by others. He is a controversial personage. The job of Wikipeia is not to take side and list only people who are liked or precisely people who are liked by Muslims. In Islamic countries criticism of Islam is banned and critics are jailed or killed. In free societies we can’t tolerate his intolerance. The critics of Christianity, Judaism and all other religions have the same rights to express their views as the supporters of these religions have. I urge Muslims to exercise restraint and Wikipedia which is a free and unbiased encyclopedia to remain free and unbiased. Maybe you can start another Islamic encyclopedia where you control what goes in and censor all opposing views. But please let Wikepedia remain neutral. Thanks for your consideration. I don’t think the pretext that one is not known in the “real world” is a valid criteria. Ibn Warraq is world famous critic of Islam. Ibn Warraq is a pseudonym. I have not personally seen Sina saying Ali Sina is not his real name. If it is not, it is understandable for safety reason. [User: 72.21.32.122]
    • "read by millions"? The above is a weird mixture of straw men and unsubstantiated claims. If you read Aphaia's original comment above, it has nothing to do with the likability straw man of yours - just a concern about notability, raising the precise issue that you choose to avoid, which is whether many online links imply notability in the real world, or whether it's some google bomb hoax spread by those right-wing websites that you mention, etc. If he had published a book, or some articles that receive peer reviews, or your claim that he's read by millions can be substantiated, then you could have skipped all of that likability nonsense, which no one has ever used on either wikipedia or wikiquote as reason to delete an article, as far as I know... Sams 28 June 2005 21:00 (UTC)
  • Comment: I created this because article Ali Sina on wikipedia was becoming a quote respository. I personally think he's rather unnotable but wikipedia is of a medium that we can have marginally notable people as long as we do not link them on prominent pages. My only request is that there be consistency and if you want to keep here keep on wikipedia, and if you want to delete here delete on wikipedia. 68.82.51.76 28 June 2005 21:18 (UTC)
    • Comment: Your assertion about "marginally notable people as long as we do not link them on prominent pages" sounds very wrong to me, or at least it should be. As for your point about consistency, I completely agree with it, but unfortunately we don't control wikipedia. Would you like to raise a VfD there? (You must register an account, otherwise you cannot vote.) BTW my personal opinion is that both articles should be kept, but I don't plan to vote on wikipedia. Sams 28 June 2005 21:36 (UTC)
      • Even notable people should not be at times linked on prominent pages. Jerry Falwell (who is prominent enough for wikipedia definitely as a household name) is notable, but he should not be linked on w:Christianity. That's what I mean... and I think that sounds reasonable? I don't really think it's a matter of controlling wikipedia... I think reasonable editors will see that Ali Sina has very little impact on Islam and should not be linked from that article. Just like Muslims like Rashad Khalifa shouldn't be either. I will only raise the VfD on wikipedia if it's deleted here (which I don't think it will be). Oh, and I'm w:User:Grenavitar on wikipedia, I don't use quotes enough to make a name... (and, I'm 68.82.51.76 from above but I am at a different location) 128.175.20.75 6 July 2005 15:59 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is degenerating into another personality war. The Wikipedia VfD suggestion is a method en:Wikiquote has used successfully before to stimulate debate by the vastly-larger WP audience on the notability (not popularity) of a person or topic. Whether it results in a delete or a keep consensus, we can use the result here to help our much smaller audience determine whether an article is worth preserving. We are not obligated to follow any decision on WP, as we (A) have a different purpose, and (B) are our own community and make our own decisions. It's just an aid. That said, there are many other methods we use to attempt to determine notability. Google is one, but as I've pointed out in many other debates, it is not authoritative, as it merely registers current popularity (which is not necessarily the same as notability) and can be "bombed" (thanks Sams; I hadn't heard that term before). Print sources are always preferred. Telecast speeches are highly desirable. Websites are the least useful source, as anyone can create a website in a few minutes. In fact, websites more often provide evidence of self-promotion attempts, although each situation must be examined individually. I have no current position on this question; I just wanted to point out the reasons behind some of our existing practices. — Jeff Q (talk) 28 June 2005 22:34 (UTC)
  • Keep it- I like to learn both sides of Islam.
    • Added by Sagir, moved to std. fmt. by me ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 5 July 2005 06:51 (UTC)
      • Comment: This vote isn't counted into the result, due to lack of signature. --Aphaia 00:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I am not sure how keeping Ali's quotes allows anyone to learn about a "side of Islam" -- these are the standard ramblings against Islam, except said by a (purported?) ex-Muslim, giving it some supposed legitimacy. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 5 July 2005 06:51 (UTC)
  • Even if these quotes are “standard ramblings against Islam” they are typical rambling of all ex-Muslims against Islam. They are not important because they are the views of Mr. Sina but because they are shared by the majority of ex-Muslims. We could delete this page; in that case I suggest we start a new page quoting Ibn Warraq or another ex-Muslim. To understand the views of ex-Muslims, we must read what they say. I have chosen quotes that make the reader see in a glance what a typical ex-Muslim says. [User: 72.21.32.122]
  • Keep for now. In the absence of a WP VfD to further discern notability, and despite some of the questionable arguments made above, I'm willing to accept this person's WP article as temporary evidence of notability, especially given the other problems Wikiquote is dealing with at the moment. — Jeff Q (talk) 22:22, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but of course keeping the criticisms as well. If a person is notable enough for Wikipedia that seems a good criterion for inclusion here, and criticisms by people he enters into dialog with should also be notable enough for inclusion. If any of the primary quotations or the critical quotes are not founded upon clear evidence that too can be noted in the comments. ~ Achilles 10:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
    • As I have just explained elsewhere, no it cannot. Existence of evidence strengthening a quote, or lack thereof, is not part of wikiquote's mandate. That is up to scholars of current affairs, and perhaps up to wikipedia to summarize those scholars' works. Wikipedia has strict "no original research" policy -- but wikiquote's policy "no comments except those required for context", and those must be npov. Let us leave the debates to scholars, and summarization of the debates to encyclopedias, and let us be an accurate collection of quotes (and we have significant amounts of efforts to do here, as many know) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: deleted. Aphaia 23:30, 29 June 2005 (UTC)

Alice Hoeltke [edit]

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

  • Vote closes: Deleted (2 deletes, no dissent). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aphaia (talk • contribs) 23:30, 29 June 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. And change change. Rmhermen 16:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. This article seems to be a game sandbox for one or two anon editors. The only external instances of Hoeltke quotes are on notoriously unreliable quote sites, and there are only 2 or 3 at that. Extremely unnotable; remove Change quote before deleting. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 01:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Alicja Gajowniczek [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (6 Deletes; 2 Keeps, both from editors whose sole contributions are toward vanity articles and supporting them in VFDs). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. —LrdChaos 18:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete--134.151.32.254 18:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, concur with above. ~ UDScott 18:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided and quotes sourced, which is certain to be impossible for wiki-unnotable teachers. ("Oral transfer" is not an acceptable source, as it cannot be independently verified.) To the admiring students of Ms. Gajowniczek: It's not a judgment on the person's worthiness, just a reflection of the subject notability and sourcing requirements of Wikimedia Foundation projects. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't delete. I think students wants to have fun! Don't ban them to have it! She's not Ms. Gajowniczek, She's Mrs. Gajowniczek. ~ —This unsigned comment is by 83.5.243.12 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep This person surely is notable to a select group! Boo! Hiss! Horatio Apple 18:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. InvisibleSun 05:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. —This unsigned comment is by 83.5.233.251 (talk • contribs) . at 4:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 21:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

All Grown Up [edit]

Almost certain copyright violation. Former content [15] was apparently the entire lyrics to the theme song of All Grown Up!, an animated kids' show. Since it's a real show, it might be salvaged with some quotes, including excerpts from the song (which doesn't have much to begin with). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent; no improvements as requested). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless non-copyvio quotes are provided. Would help if editors added the WP intro with a link, an IMDb link, and the usual structure. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, concur with Jeffq. ~ UDScott 12:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — MosheZadka 19:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Allgames.com [edit]

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

  • Vote closed: Result: delete (5 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 19:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 08:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete concur with Moshe. ~ UDScott 12:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. -- Jaxl 22:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even though AllGamesNetwork has a Wikipedia article, suggesting its own notability, forums comments of ordinary users, like the vast majority of blogs, aren't really notable. IMDb is a much more established website and an important reference for both WP and WQ, but we don't include quotes from its message boards, either. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ~ Achilles † 16:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: kept. --Aphaia 04:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Amber [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: Kept (2 keeps, no dissent). --Aphaia 04:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless quotes added ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 23:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Is there a way to vote "either Delete or Transwiki, but I don't care which one?" I do not have enough time to research whether it would make a good wp transwiki, but it is certain it has no place here. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
      • You just have. If there's enough support for delete and/or transwiki (which from Wikiquote's POV is "get it off Wikiquote"), I'll personally shepherd it through a transwiki to WP, which will accomplish both. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikipedia. They already have an article there (which I've linked ours to), but there is at least one item missing from WP that's included here (her real name). If we don't transwiki or delete it, the "introductory" material should at least be significantly edited down. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep now that the encyc text has been replaced by some quotes (although one of them is really a Ulysses quote). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now that there are quotes. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 02:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Delete. — UDScott 22:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Amirali Zohrenejad [edit]

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

  • Vote closed: Result:Delete (2 deletes, no dissent)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability is produced. ~ UDScott 22:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete concur with UDScott. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 22:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I suggest handling Amir Zohrenejad in the same way. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 22:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I concur with Moshe and also suggest the same for Reshma Nichani and Nima Mojgani as well. ~ UDScott 22:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: keep. — MosheZadka 20:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Amitabh Bachchan [edit]

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

  • Vote closed: Result: keep (2 delete votes, conditional on no quotes being added -- but quotes were added, making this a no-consensus vote, so by default keep) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 20:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I support MosheZadka's "keep" closure and his subsequent tagging of the article as POV and needing cleanup. We got what we asked for; we can improve it now with some editing. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless quotes added. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 12:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Concur with MosheZadka. Come on, supporters, the guy's listed on IMDb! If you think he's quotable, quote him! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 12:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ana ivanovic [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (5 deletes; no dissent; no quotes added). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: speedy deleted test page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Crichton [edit]

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

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

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 14:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Finlay [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless evidence of notability is provided. A google search only yields an assortment of professors and a barrister, none of which seems to meet the notability standard. ~ UDScott 13:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Actually, I think it's worse than a question of notability. The anonymous user comes from within the Northern Grid for Learning network, which apparently serves British schools, making me suspect that this is an attempt to disparage the Cardiff University professor with false quotes. I have replaced nearly the entire content of the article with a notice about this suspicion and a link to the page history for review. (This will keep the material from being mirrored and search-indexed while we review this case.) Editors who wish to make a legitimate article from this sub-stub should add brief bio info and quotes, preferably sourced, after the warning. Currently, there is no WP article to aid this process. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 00:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Andrew lafree [edit]

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

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

  • Delete. 121a0012 05:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Koweja 15:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only four hits on Google (all from the oxy.edu domain), no Wikipedia page. —LrdChaos 16:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sole contribution of inanely common quote from likely university student who can't follow English capitalization rules, the most common form of vanity page. These people can't even be unique, let alone notable. Makes one fear for the state of higher education. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 19:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 14:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Nierman [edit]

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

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

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 23:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Price, Andrew Alexander Price [edit]

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

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

The result was: delete. — LrdChaos 16:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Andrew T. Butcher [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (4 delete votes, no dissent). —LrdChaos 16:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obvious vanity page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, concur with above. ~ UDScott 11:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as obvious vanity. —LrdChaos 14:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no quotations. 121a0012 20:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Andrey Marchuk [edit]

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

  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: Deleted (2 Deletes; 1 arguably implied Delete; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 05:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No quotes. Does not exist in Wikipedia. jni 14:42, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Supposingly the editor intended to create his user page, but this editor was an anonym. (Or we could move it to his places ...) --Aphaia 17:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Deleted. ~ Kalki 19:09, 11 March 2005 (UTC)

Andy Lai [edit]

  • non-notable quote from non-notable personage. Rmhermen 17:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Deleted ~ Kalki
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 03:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Anfiniti [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This appears to be a case, similar to the now-deleted SydLexia.com page, where non-notable quotes from a bulletin-board style website have been posted. ~ UDScott 13:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Concur with UDScott. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Anime [edit]

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

  • Vote closes: Result: deleted. (2 deletes, no dissent) --Aphaia 9 July 2005 03:50 (UTC)
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 01:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless at least one notable quote about anime is posted before the close date. This article title has potential, but without the quote from a Wikiquote user (which is inappropriate by policy), it would be blank. — Jeff Q (talk) 28 June 2005 05:08 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — MosheZadka 13:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Another Day [edit]

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

  • Vote closed: Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete copyvio ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete UDScott 16:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete copyvio. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — LrdChaos 20:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


Antarctic institute of canada [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (five explicit votes to delete, one implicit vote to delete, no dissent). —LrdChaos 20:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 121a0012 02:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is merely a (malformatted) copy of the WP article that was also just created, apparently in an attempt to promote its existence. Consider that the WP article was created as the only edit of w:User:Aamardon, and both articles list "Austin Mardon" as the Institute's founder, complete with a personal website link. Indeed, according to his website, Mardon seems more notable (through publications) than his Institute (no sources, only 20 unique Google hits). One might nominate the WP article for deletion to see if hard data can be dug up on this organization, but I probably won't bother unless someone shows enough interest to add quotes here. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - If Mardon is notable enough, he should get a page, but not an affiliated institution. Koweja 20:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No quotes, non-notable institution. —LrdChaos 14:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 13:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — MosheZadka 20:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Anthony Donovan Eichelberger [edit]

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

  • Vote closed: Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 20:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 12:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Very cute, but very unnotable except to his mother, the apparent author. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with Jeffq fully, on both points. --Aphaia 22:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: User:Watkyn presumably took my advice and added the quotes to her user (talk) page. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 08:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: deleted.. — Aphaia 00:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Anton Wolkov [edit]

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

  • Vote Closed: Result: deleted. (3 deletes, no dissent).--Aphaia 00:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. These apparent vanity pages are popping up so often that I'm beginning to think that we should use VfD to get the anons who create them to justify the article or have them deleted, rather than force the community to research them. How hard can it be to add a friggin' line about who a person is, and a link to why they're worth quoting? — Jeff Q (talk) 28 June 2005 04:33 (UTC)
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Keep. — Jeffq 09:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anything Goes [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: Keep (4 Keeps; no dissent; article slightly improved). — Jeff Q (talk) 09:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: MosheZadka 05:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep: Now that it's clear what it refers to, and has quotes. MosheZadka 13:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unless the author provides info/link to the movie or whatever that he's referring to. Sams 20:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. Deserves at least a stub. Thanks for the info. Sams 22:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a musical.
  • Keep. This is a famous 1934 musical whose Cole Porter songs are a notable part of Americana. I've added a brief intro line to the article and a stub message. I've also asked one of the anon editors to help us expand this and other musical theater articles. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Cole Porter musicals deserve articles - even stubby. --Aphaia 20:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: redirect to List of proverbs. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 19:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Aphorism [edit]

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

  • Vote closed: Result: redirect to List of proverbs (1 delete, 2 redirect) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 19:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless replaced with a proper theme page (quotes about aphorisms) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of proverbs after moving quotes to appropriate proverb articles. (Actually, it should be probably be "Aphorisms".) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect concur with Jeff. Personally I love the idea to have a quote collection "about aphorisms". It could be fun to read as well quotations. --Aphaia 04:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 03:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Apu Nahasapeemapetilon [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. —LrdChaos 20:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless pithy quotes added, in which case I reserve judgment for now for this Simpsons character pending further discussion at WQ:VP#Quotes from The Simpsons. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, but concur with Jeffq regarding ongoing discussion on characters from The Simpsons. ~ UDScott 12:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Areti metuamate [edit]

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

  • VOTE CLOSED: Result: delete (2 delete, no dissent).--Aphaia 22:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete No sign of notability.--Aphaia 17:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 16:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Argos [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It seems doubtful that quotes can be provided related to this particular store. ~ UDScott 20:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this quoteless attempt at an encyclopedia stub, especially given the robust article at w:Argos (retailer). This article appears to have been created because a number of words and phrases in the Linda Smith article were given Wikiquote links instead of more appropriate Wikipedia links. I've fixed that problem. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Aries [edit]

  • Don't know who/what Aries is supposed to be but the only quote on this page is widely attributed to Abraham Lincoln. Rmhermen 03:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: Deleted (3 Deletes, 1 implicit delete; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 04:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Since this is one of those quotes that easily gets misattributed, I've asked the anonymous user to provide a source, on the off chance there is a solid one. — Jeff Q (talk) 12:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I assume it's some Japanese cartoon character quoting Lincoln:) Unless the person who created this article wants to elaborate... Sams 21:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've seen no response from the author. — Jeff Q (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is indeed a Lincoln quote, therefore should be attributed to Lincoln. Not the zodiac sign (or cartoon character). Benn M 16:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: keep as redirect. — Angela 04:30, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Arthur C. Clark vs Clarke [edit]

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

Keep as redirect. I expect it is a common mispelling. Angela 04:30, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — MosheZadka 6 July 2005 07:47 (UTC)

Arthur Clayton Crafsee [edit]

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

  • 'Vote closed: Result: delete (2 deletes, no dissent)
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 6 July 2005 07:47 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided. Jeff Q (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — MosheZadka 06:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Ashoka Prasad [edit]

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

  • Vote closed: Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does this person really want the visibility of Wikiquote? Google offers a book editor (not author) in the medical field, an arrrest-warrant press release for illegal medical practice in Canada, and a "Special Expert, Ministry of Health, Mahe, Seychelles" (conveniently far from Canada). Maybe it's not the same person, but if not, the anon editor should seriously consider adding (other) verifiable notability info. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete UDScott 12:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I do not think the quote warrants to be noted therefore delete would be my vote.I have also checked the book quoted.The author is Ashoka Jahnavi-Prasad and not Ashoka Prasad.I would have missed it as I initially looked intoi the P section and on googling I did not find any of these except the book part.But this quote is supremely unnoteworthy.JK,26th November 2005
    • Moved (anon) comment to std. format., not bolding recommendation because anons are not eligible to vote. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: deleted. ~ Kalki 21:51, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Ashutosh Arya [edit]

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

This has been deleted. ~ Kalki 21:51, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Deleted. — Jeffq 07:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Askari Jafri [edit]

No quotes, no intro, no wp article, google points to various minor mentions (not sure if it's the same person). ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 07:32 (UTC)

  • Vote closed. Result: Deleted (3 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 07:32 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No quotes. jni 05:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 08:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Austin James Schock [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless evidence of notability is produced. ~ UDScott 15:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Concur with UDScott. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: deleted.. — Aphaia 20:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Austin Roberts [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: deleted. (2 deletes, no dissent) --Aphaia 20:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Concur with MosheZadka. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Delete. — Jeff Q (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Australian rules football [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (3 deletes; 1 discounted delete (late); no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. —LrdChaos 13:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Concur with LrdChaos. We seem to be developing a number of theme articles with quotes that have only a passing connection to their purported subjects. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. - InvisibleSun 18:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 18:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


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

The result was: merged into Azerbaijani proverbs. — Jeff Q (talk) 04:23, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Azerbaijani proverbs [edit]

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

Support: I propose two resolutions; 1) once deleting "Azerbaijani proverb", after copying its history on talk of "Azerbaijanian Proverbs" and then move the latter to the former (the correct name) 2) manually copying the (merged) content of "Azerbaijanian Proverbs" to the correct one and making the latter a redirect to the former (for preserving its significant history). --Aphaia 09:44, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand Aphaia second step. If the article is moved its history and talk page moves with it and a redirect is automatically created. Why would anything have to be moved manually? Rmhermen 00:56, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
2) is not the second step, I proposed two ways - we can choose one of them. The second way is helpful to preserv history (and I am sure most of editors don't care the differences between two): because if we delete one of them to move another, then the history of the former will be lost, and technically it is GFDL violation unless the history of the former won't be kept under the most strict analysis. To prevent this we can merge it technically like 1) but I don't prefer it generally because such history tends to be painful to read. Explanation: when we merge two article technically, (it follows those steps: 0) merging two article on title A manually 1) delete article A. 2) move article B into A. 3) undelete former A, their histories appear cumlatively: then it appear oldest revision of former A, oldest revision of former B, second oldest revision of fromer A ... and it is very painful to read as I say on the above. --Aphaia 04:03, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Resolved. Kalki expeditiously merged the cumulative article into Azerbaijani proverbs and redirected the bad name (Aphaia's 2nd resolution) on 27 March. — Jeff Q (talk) 04:23, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 19:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

B. H. Danser's Monograph: Nepenthes rajah [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (4 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 11:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This appears to be a copyright violation of Danser's Monograph on Nepenthes: Nepenthes Rajah. I've removed the text and added a link to allow review. Intriguingly, the article creator also created Nepenthes rajah, which is perhaps the most specific quote article I've ever seen on Wikiquote. (It's about a carnivorous plant.) That article, however, seems more along the lines of a proper WQ article, however unusual its topic. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's probably copyvio, but even if it isn't, it's more of a Wikisource thing than WQ. —LrdChaos 14:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as page creator. This was deleted from Wikisource as it is not in the public domain and fair use text is not permitted. I believe this extract easily meets all 4 conditions of fair use, however, since it seems it does not belong on any sister project of Wikipedia, I have simply decided to link to the www.omnisterra.com website from the main article. Mgiganteus1 21:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Bad title [edit]

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

  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: Deleted and protected with a message. jni 09:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I think this can be deleted, but except it to be re-created in some form because MediaWiki software has a curious feature to go to that page when it encounters a malformed link. For example, try to type [[ as a page name in your browsers address bar, and you will be directed to Bad title. I don't know if it is possible to change this behaviour. jni 14:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I updated the page to show the text of MediaWiki:Badtitletext and protected it. I suggest we delete the history and the VfD tag from it, but leave the one version I put there to prevent constant re-creation. And maybe a warning/explanatory message on its talk. This is how WP handles this special case currently. jni 14:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and re-create in the way Jni proposed. --Aphaia 18:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as Jni said, and the re-created page would also be protected, if I understood correctly? Sams 20:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as jni said. Jeff Q (talk) 04:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 03:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Bart the Genius [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. —LrdChaos 15:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even if it had quotes, any attempt to make a decent article out of a TV show episode will violate any reasonable interpretation of "fair use". Best to include a very select sample in the overall article or a reasonable subset (like a season). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, concur with above. ~ UDScott 12:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 00:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Basheer Ahmed, Bashir Ahmed [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes; no dissent; no further info provided). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, concur with Jeff. ~ UDScott 11:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't find any evidence that the person being referenced by this article really exists; there's no corresponding Wikipedia article, and a Google search turns up a singer, an author who edited a book published nearly 10 years after the death of this page's person, a physician in Boston, a college named for an justice, and a (living) computer science professor. Additionally, none of the quotes turn up any non-Wikiquote results in a search. —LrdChaos 18:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Merged above vote from new nomination into earlier nomination. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I moved this and five other nominations to the bottom of this page and changed their closing dates, effectively extending their ealier nominations, because I'd failed to add the {{vfd}} tag to the articles. My apologies for the confusion. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Basil O'Connor [edit]

One quote with no source, no wp article, no intro, google hits show various quote collections. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 16:39 (UTC)

  • Vote closed: Result: delete (2 deletes, no dissent)
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 16:39 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided. Jeff Q (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete both. — Jeffq 12:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Be and Do [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete both (7 deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. —LrdChaos 13:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 13:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Robert 16:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. - InvisibleSun 20:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Koweja 00:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 121a0012 01:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't recall where from at the moment, but I'm fairly sure these three consecutive quotes are a single joke from some routine or comedy. If it can be sourced, it belongs wherever it may be properly attributed. It certainly doesn't make for a reasonable theme article, let alone two. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: It appears the "fortunes2" database on my Linux machine, as two variants. The closest just starts off with Shakespeare's "To be or not to be", and the other includes a couple of others, ending with "Yabba dabba do" from The Flintstones. For neither one is any sort of source listed. —LrdChaos 05:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 19:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Beaujolais Bulman [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (4 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. LrdChaos 14:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless notability is shown and quotes are added. ~ UDScott 15:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Likely prank page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - InvisibleSun 15:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 03:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (7 deletes, incl. 1 implicit; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. (Rant about one-shot vanity editors creating single-quote articles deleted after better judgment returned.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 121a0012 21:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Koweja 02:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 13:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Robert 13:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. —LrdChaos 14:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 04:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Ben Payton [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (4 proper Deletes, 1 discounted late Delete; 3 counted Keeps [Forrest Hump, Great Warrior, Changetheworld] since 88.107.104.96 not only attempted 2 deceptions but also is a suspected sockpuppet of Forrest Hump/Ben Payton; most importantly, no attempt was made to change the article either to source the notability of the putative quotee (a British "orator") or to replace the material with quotes from the identified notable Benjamin Payton). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. —LrdChaos 22:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not delete Actually this article is not remotely similar to the User: Ben Payton page and it does include an assertion of notability. Oh, and by the way, why not read the page before you vote to delete it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.107.104.96 (talk • contribs) 14 May 2006 10:39:38 (UTC)
    • Comment. At the time of the nomination, this was the "Ben Payton" page and this was the "User:Ben Payton" page. At the time, they were nearly identical. Many of the changes since then have been from an anon user, not User:Ben Payton (which, had I noticed, would have been reverted, as edits to User pages (not User talk pages) should only be from that user). As to notability, while the article does now include an assertion of notability, I'm unable to find evidence to support it. The top results for a Google search on the name are a Wikipedia user page, a comic book character, a musician, etc. For all that, there are only 164 results, and only two (both pages on the same site, www.school-portal.co.uk) appear to be this person. —LrdChaos 16:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't delete for those fairly obvious reasons Forrest Hump
  • Don't delete there's some memorable quotes here by a noted public speaker UDScott —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.107.104.96 (talk • contribs) 14 May 2006 10:55:27 (UTC)
    • I have blocked this IP address for 3 days for impersonating another user. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Ben Payton is an extremely well known figure up here in Alaska and if you've read the article about him you'll see that he's an highly impressive orator. Incidentally a google search reveals some 1,4100,000 results Great Warrior of the North
    • The first sentence above is not evidence, but a mere claim. For all we know, the author might not be "up here in Alaska", but halfway around the world instead. That's why personal attestations are not considered evidence. It also includes the standard attempt to ignore notability and verifiability requirements by selling the qualities of the quotes and quotee. As for the supposed Google search, here is mine for "Ben Payton" [16], which yields 377 hits, remarkably low for a presumably common name, even if no Ben Payton is notable. I invite GWotN to provide us with a link to his Google search as evidence. Otherwise, given his current edit history (1 edit each to "Ben Payton", his own user page, and this page), I would have to suspect him of being a sockpuppet of User:Ben Payton himself. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Note. It is possible that User:Ben Payton, User:Forrest Hump, and the IP 88.107.104.96 are all the same user, given the contribution history of the users, and the fact that 88.107.104.96 has made edits to the user pages for both users. —LrdChaos 17:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. The current article claims that Ben Payton is "President of Tuskegee University in Alaska". Since Tuskegee University (at least the only one I know of) is in Alabama, this reinforces, along with the impersonation, apparent sockpuppetry, and the complete lack of actual evidence (not just unsupported claims), the idea that these users are all the the person, who is a prankster. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, concur with Jeffq and LrdChaos. ~ UDScott 13:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: There seems to be quite a bit of confusion promulgated over this article. User:Ben Payton, who created this article, states that this person is a "well known British orator". User:Great Warrior of the North added a claim that the quotee was "President of Tuskegee University in Alaska and shared a podium with President George W. Bush when he visited the university in April 2006", and added the above comment that the quotee "is an extremely well known figure up here in Alaska". An anonymous user in the same network as our impersonator here, 88.107.104.96, quickly reverted GWotN's edit. My own research turned up a "President Benjamin F. Payton" of Tuskegee University in Alabama, who did indeed give a speech before Bush. (See Payton bio, White House press release, Tuskegee version, Payton quotes.) This person has no Wikipedia article at this time, under "Benjamin Payton" (the canonical representation) or any reasonable variation. I draw the following conclusions from this and the above information:
    1. User:Ben Payton, who uses British spelling on his user page, created a vanity article about himself.
    2. 88.107.101.162 (talk · contributions), 88.107.104.96 (talk · contributions), 88.107.108.70 (talk · contributions) (all of whom operate from within UK ISP Tiscali's DSL network of likely dynamic IP addresses), and User:Forrest Hump are likely sockpuppets of User:Ben Payton. Even if they aren't, their combined contributions to Wikiquote to-date have been solely to support the British Ben Payton (with only minor exceptions for user pages and a single VfD vote supporting Hannah Richardson while admitting this person is not notable).
    3. User:Great Warrior of the North, who supports the article, seems to think it's about the Tuskegee president, and despite apparently being from Alaska, claims familiarity with this Payton while thinking he works in Alaska rather than Alabama (a rather significant error).
    4. Dr. Benjamin F. Payton seems to be notable enough for quoting, but no one participating in this VfD seems to really know this person or wish to correctly quote him.
    My conclusion is that nobody here is willing to make this article even a stub about a notable person. I would recommend that if Tuskegee fans wish to have an article on their President, they should start one from scratch at Benjamin Payton (and don't forget the sources that I took the trouble to dig up). This article is a hopeless mess. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. InvisibleSun 05:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep i've read through all the articles nominated for deletion, and this is one of the very few that is any good. How can it be a 'hopeless mess' when its actually got outstanding pieces of rhetoric? Wikiquote is supposed to be about good quotations, so lets keep the few that we have. Changetheworld 19:12 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid I wasn't very clear when I said the article was a hopeless mess. I really meant that trying to figure out what this article should be is a hopeless mess, per my above research on the subject(s) and the editors' postings and edit histories. Pithiness of quotes is irrelevant to Wikiquote if the quotee is not notable. Wikiquote is indeed about "good quotations", but only from "notable people and creative works" (from the first sentence on Main Page), and these should be sourced whenever possible. (Wikiquote:Wikiquote mentions quotes that have "achieved fame" by themselves, but this means truly well-known quotes of anonymous origin, not an excuse for people to post their own sayings, which is what makes our current Anonymous article a near-total waste of computer storage.) That's not my policy or the policy of one regular editor or sysop; it is Wikimedia Foundation policy about the purposes and contents of its projects. There are many, many other quote websites that will accept quotes from anyone without establishing notability. This just isn't one of them. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per it being a pure vanity page as is made clearer by the sockpuppets which are currently going on. SorryGuy 23:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — MosheZadka 07:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Benjamin Abell [edit]

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

  • Vote closed: Result: delete (1 user delete, 1 anon delete, helpful comment establishing nn) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Same as above. User:136.242.24.153 18.02, 31.10.05 (EST)
  • Comment: I came in too late for the vote, but I thought I'd add some research to back up the apparent vote. Abell's only mention in WP is inclusion in w:List of meteorologists, so whoever added him didn't even bother to add a stub for him. His name alone doesn't yield any results, besides the WQ article and its clones, higher than genealogical entries (for folks in earlier centuries). (I did find one reference buried in a National Weather Association page, but that was 2 Google pages past a Manchester University faculty member profile page — not encouraging.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Deleted. — Jeffq 07:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Benzi K. Ahamed [edit]

No notability, as asserted in the page. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 07:35 (UTC)

  • Vote closed. Result: Deleted (3 Deletes; no dissent). Science quote removed per comment below. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 07:35 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jeff Q (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article itself establishes non-notability. jni 05:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: also remove quotes from Science if we delete the page ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Deleted. — Jeffq 05:44, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bert Macleod [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: Deleted (4 Deletes; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 05:44, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: MosheZadka 14:24, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. So un-notable that he doesn't even have his non-trivial quotes in free-for-all sites like QuotesPlace. Must be a vanity page. — Jeff Q (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Sams 09:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense. Author removed the vfd tag. jni 13:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — LrdChaos 14:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Bille joe armstrong [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (six explicit votes to delete, one implicit vote to delete, no dissent). —LrdChaos 14:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this self-admitted "fans [sic] perspective", according to the edit summary. If by some chance, properly sourced quotes are added instead of personal opinions, it should at least be moved to proper capitalization. (Why is it so many editors can't seem to use the shift key properly, either capitalizing everything, or failing to capitalize proper nouns? Grumble, grumble.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. (Comment: perhaps we should follow WP's lead and disable creation of new articles by anons?) 121a0012 04:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Departing Wikimedia Foundation Board member Angela strongly objected when we discussed this early this year, on the not-unreasonable basis that we have so few regular editors that a true community consensus for something so controversial probably couldn't be achieved yet. Such an opinion from a super-experienced wikian pretty much ended that discussion at the time. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No quotes or meaningful content whatsoever. —LrdChaos 15:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Koweja 17:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Robert 02:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 13:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Deleted. --Aphaia 12:14, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Billy Boy Franklin [edit]

  • VOTE CLOSED: Deleted: 2 deleted, no dissent. --Aphaia 12:14, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Can anyone find anything about him apart from this quote? Rmhermen 14:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The only notability this person seems to have is his ability to get this single quote into several dozen quote pages. (I did find 4 other quotes, none of which are going to stop the world with their import.) Not a single web page says who this person is, nor does he show up in WP, IMDb, Amazon, or All-Music Guide. To paraphrase Billy Boy himself, "If a quote is repeated often enough, all the dumb jackasses in the world not only get to admire it, they even swear by the quotee." — Jeff Q (talk) 02:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: by the way when was it listed here by whom? By Rmhermen? --Aphaia 22:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Deleted. — Aphaia 14:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Bleed [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: Deleted (3 deletes, no dissent; as for the new speedy-criteria propossal, see also Wikiquote talk:Speedy deletions) --Aphaia 14:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and I propose to create a new speedy criteria - "an article which only contains either links including interlang links." --Aphaia 09:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and concur with Aphaia's speedy-delete criterion suggestion. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Bob Dylan [edit]

Bob Dylan. Potential copyright violation from [17]. Angela 21:53, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Seconded. Nanobug 23:09, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Thirded. Scarequotes 04:38, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
forthed - fonzy
fifthed. - user:zanimum
The copyvio material was removed previously, and I have just pasted some legitimate quotes of Dylan's there. If for some reason the page should be deleted to wipe the record clean, that can be done, and the current material re-pasted. I wasn't sure whether this was considered necessary or not. Kalki 20:12, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — LrdChaos 14:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Bob [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (four explicit votes to delete, one implicit vote to delete, no dissent). —LrdChaos 14:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can think of two well-known people often identified only as "Bob". The Twin Peaks character probably doesn't say enough to merit his own quote article, and the head of the Church of the Subgenius, if quoted, would probably better be served by a title like 'J.R. "Bob" Dobbs', or just 'J.R. Dobbs'. Of course, I'm only attempting to apply reason to a prank article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, concur with InvisibleSun. ~ UDScott 12:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No association with a verifiably real and notable person, and no quotes. —LrdChaos 13:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 121a0012 20:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: merge. — MosheZadka 12:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Bokononism [edit]

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

  • Vote closed: Result: merge (3 merge, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 12:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless quotes are added and WP material removed. ~ UDScott 22:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Kurt Vonnegut. Merging would remove most of the editorial stuff, and retain what quotations there are there (currently). ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, per MosheZadka. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Kept.. — Aphaia 09:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Bonus Stage [edit]

No quote content. Expand or delete. jni June 27, 2005 06:06 (UTC)

  • Vote Closed: Result: Kept. (2 keeps, 1 expand or delete). --Aphaia 09:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 27 June 2005 09:09 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. As long as Wikipedia supports the notability of these comics with articles with a significant history, and if they have quotes, I'm willing to go along with them. But I'd like to know if WP has addressed the general issue of web-comic notability. — Jeff Q (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Delete. — Jeff Q (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Boscoe Pertwee [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (5 deletes; 1 keep). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. —LrdChaos 13:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided. The sole quote isn't even original; I'm sure we could dig up recorded comedy routines that make similar statements. (Steven Wright would be my first target, although I doubt it originated with him, either.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 14:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, for now. Although, as has been mentioned, a search reveals an unnotable poster to forums and the like, it appears that there is a complication. Some of the Google results come up with a mention of Boscoe Pertwee in Umberto Eco's book Kant and the Platypus: Essays on Language and Cognition. One of the search results offers this quote from Eco: "a quotation from Boscoe Pertwee, an eighteenth century author (unknown to me) which I found in Gregory (1981:558): 'I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not so sure.'" Plainly the forum poster has derived his username from this source; but the Eco book is a nonfiction work, which would suggest that there was an earlier Boscoe Pertwee and that the quotation may count as original. The question at this point, then, is this: do we allow a page for an exceedingly obscure person (no info other than that he was eighteenth-century), or do we simply delete it and transfer the quote to some appropriate theme page, mentioning Eco's book as the source? - InvisibleSun 15:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, IMO, we don't want an article that can only ever have a single quote of such indirect sourcing. However, it would be excellent to provide a sourced version of this quote in an appropriate theme or work article, or possibly even the Eco article. (Could you explain the citation of "Gregory", InvisibleSun? I couldn't easily figure out what work this is citing. "Alastair McEwen" is the only translator I ran across.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - It doesn't seem like the author would be considered notable enough to warrent a page. Koweja 17:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 121a0012 02:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


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

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 19:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Boyd Rice and Friends [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; 1 Merge; no one chose to merge any quotes). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. —LrdChaos 14:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Boyd Rice, if there are any salvageable quotes to move. ~ UDScott 15:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't see anything in the article worth merging, frankly. Liner notes rarely make for pithy quotes, and copying the whole text is probably a copyvio. I've wondered about this article for a while. 66.52.252.210 created it over 18 months ago, as their sole edit, putting it in Category:Boyd Rice and Friends albums (the only album-list category we've ever had), as if to start adding quotes (or maybe just liner notes) from other albums as well. A week later, 66.52.247.28 (very likely the same person) created Boyd Rice, but added arguably useful quotes at least. (This IP address only contributed one other edit, creating the Anton LaVey stub, containing only a quote from — you guessed it — Boyd Rice.) Deleting the band article won't lose any meaningful quotes and will make the unnecessary category disappear as well, leaving the Boyd Rice stub for future expansion. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: no consensus. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Brand [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: No proper consensus for action, so effectively Kept. (Rationale: 1 Neutral; 1 anon Keep w/o signature, which MZ took the trouble to add signature; inferred MZ's implicit Keep from his article improvement. All in all, a highly irregular vote which may establish bad precendents.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless some context and evidence of notability provided. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Neutral. Ibsen is certainly notable, but I'm concerned about a proliferation of play stubs, when these can be easily added to the Ibsen article (à la Dean R. Koontz) unless and until they warrant their own articles. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Very strong Keep This is a quote from the Henrik Ibsen play Brand in its Norwegian original and English translation. It links properly from his quote page. I added a link to Ibsen and the play.
    • Unsigned vote by anon (User:84.48.129.34) -- but useful information! I've added links and intro to Brand (before the anon did, and then removed the anon's version which was malformatted -- see Brand history) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 19:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Brent weichsel [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (4 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 13:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obvious vanity page from MySpace user. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non notable person, vanity page. —LrdChaos 14:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. -- Robert 02:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Bret Easton Ellis [edit]

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

  • Vote Closed. Result: Deleted (3 Deletes; no dissent; no quotes added as requested). — Jeff Q (talk) 05:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete MosheZadka 14:12, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless quotes added. I've asked the anonymous user to add some. They may have simply created the page because of a WQ (not WP) link from American Psycho. — Jeff Q (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No quotes. Sams 09:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — LrdChaos 14:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Brett Hatfield [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (six explicit votes to delete, one implicit vote to delete, no dissent). —LrdChaos 14:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless evidence of notability is provided. ~ UDScott 14:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity page about a high school student. I've posted {{vanity-warn}} to the creator's talk page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity page for a non-notable person. —LrdChaos 16:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Robert 16:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Koweja 13:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 121a0012 02:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 21:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Brian Evans [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 16:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete obvious vanity page. Article itself states non-notability and makes clear that the author is a personal acquaintance of the subject. Wikipedia's article on Brian Evans is about a cricketer, not a philosopher. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Concur with above. jni 07:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Brian Kubatz [edit]

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

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

The result was: delete. — MosheZadka 06:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Brian Morin [edit]

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

  • Vote closed: Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Concur with Moshe; this "math gen" sounds unnotable. No WP article; Google produces plenty of other Brian Morins, none apparently notable, either. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete UDScott 12:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Delete. — Jeffq 07:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Brian Ratkus [edit]

No intro, no wp article, google search finds nothing. Possibly vanity. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 07:43 (UTC)

  • Vote closed. Result: Delete (3 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 07:43 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability not found. jni 05:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 16:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Broden [edit]

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

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

  • Delete Koweja 15:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No Google results at all on the full name given in the article, no Wikipedia page. —LrdChaos 16:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 03:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even searching for just the title name plus parts of the "quotes" yields no meaningful results. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 19:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete everything. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Broken links [edit]

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

  • Vote closed: Result: delete everything, including new additions (4 deletes, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Aphaia 17:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I struck out Aphaia's vote, because of her vote below just to make sure it isn't counted twice by accident (this is going to be a clear delete, but we better avoid giving any impression of not following procedure) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 08:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the bunch of them. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 21:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete eos (delete them all). I thought we got rid of all these leftovers already. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all, including those that Jeff found. UDScott 19:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all, including those additional stuffs. Jeff you beat me ;o The proper way to fix them was definitely to council "Allpages". --Aphaia 06:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 09:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Bush Administration [edit]

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

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

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

  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: delete (4 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeffq 09:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone creates real, substantive articles for either or both U.S. Bush adminstrations (to follow Wikipedia's articles), in which case this one should be turned into a disambiguation page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Jeffq. -- Jaxl 23:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Concur with Jeff and Jaxl. ~ UDScott 22:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ~ Achilles † 16:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 22:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

But Chi Huen [edit]

  • Not English
  • Might be Vanity
  • Rather nonsensical

Sydneyfong 15:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was: deleted. — Rmhermen 14:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

C is for Cookie [edit]

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

-Deleted. Rmhermen 14:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 23:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Cara Gentile [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 19:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The comedy show doesn't seem notable, nor do any of the people involved. —LrdChaos 18:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jaxl 17:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Caroline Somsen [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (7 deletes, no dissent). -- Robert 17:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fawning article about a 16-year-old; obvious vanity article. I've posted a {{vanity-warn}} to creator Sophie (talk · contributions). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 12:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as blatant vanity. —LrdChaos 14:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Robert 17:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 121a0012 02:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Koweja 04:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — MosheZadka 13:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Carolyn Crouch [edit]

Not notable: Publications in [18] are few and have no books. General consensus for Professor notability is "widely cited research or publication of a book". ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Vote closed: Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability is found UDScott 16:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think we need more than 3 (unquoted) professional articles for reasonable notability. There must be literally hundreds of thousands of academic professionals with at least these qualifications. Besides, the content suggests that a student attending a single class is trying to mock the professor with mostly inane quotes. Mocking the famous with their own words is fair game, but doing it to non-notable folks is just a mean kind of vanity. Without better notability evidence and no way to verify the quotes, I see no reason to have this article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: keep. — Jeffq 12:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Cast Away [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: keep (3 serious Keeps; 1 Keep from inveterate VFD protester 0waldo; article significantly improved). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless quotes are added, and the intro is cleaned up. ~ UDScott
    • Keep, now that some quotes have been added. Thanks Jaxl. ~ UDScott 21:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC) 11:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP. I think it's cute about the ball! 0waldo 01:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, I've cleaned up the page and added some quotes. -- Jaxl 20:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep after Jaxl's improvements. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — MosheZadka 06:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:(Messiah) [edit]

Unused inherently POV category ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Vote closed: Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete UDScott 12:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jaxl 14:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:1919 births [edit]

I removed the one or two articles in this category because we don't have any sort of consistent or well-used plan for this. While it might be useful to, down the line, include some sort of categorization by year of birth/death, it should perhaps follow the standard for pre-2000 films, which are grouped by decade instead of by individual year. —LrdChaos 13:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (5 deletes, no dissent). -- Robert 14:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. —LrdChaos 13:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 13:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. - InvisibleSun 23:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 121a0012 02:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Koweja 03:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jaxl 14:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:1920 births [edit]

I removed the one or two articles in this category because we don't have any sort of consistent or well-used plan for this. While it might be useful to, down the line, include some sort of categorization by year of birth/death, it should perhaps follow the standard for pre-2000 films, which are grouped by decade instead of by individual year. —LrdChaos 13:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (5 deletes, no dissent). -- Robert 14:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. —LrdChaos 13:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 13:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. - InvisibleSun 23:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 121a0012 02:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Koweja 03:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jaxl 14:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:1960 births [edit]

I removed the one or two articles in this category because we don't have any sort of consistent or well-used plan for this. While it might be useful to, down the line, include some sort of categorization by year of birth/death, it should perhaps follow the standard for pre-2000 films, which are grouped by decade instead of by individual year. —LrdChaos 13:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (5 deletes, no dissent). -- Robert 14:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. —LrdChaos 13:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 13:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. - InvisibleSun 23:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 121a0012 02:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Koweja 03:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jaxl 21:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:1964 films [edit]

This category is currently empty, and given the existence and use of Category:1960s films, should remain that way, and is therefore unnecessary. —LrdChaos 22:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (5 deletes, no dissent). -- Robert 21:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. —LrdChaos 22:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 12:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. - InvisibleSun 15:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Koweja 15:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: I had neglected to include the {{vfd}} template on the category page. Having now added it, I've extended the vote on this to let it run for a full two weeks after the page was tagged. —LrdChaos 03:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I prefer to stay with decade categorization unless and until we ramp up to Wikipedia's scale of (proper) film articles. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jaxl 14:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:1998 deaths [edit]

I removed the one or two articles in this category because we don't have any sort of consistent or well-used plan for this. While it might be useful to, down the line, include some sort of categorization by year of birth/death, it should perhaps follow the standard for pre-2000 films, which are grouped by decade instead of by individual year. —LrdChaos 13:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (5 deletes, no dissent). -- Robert 14:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. —LrdChaos 13:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 13:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. - InvisibleSun 23:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 121a0012 02:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Koweja 03:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — LrdChaos 23:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Actress [edit]

This category is unnecessary, duplicating Category:Actors; it looks like the category was created with no meaningful content, which was blanked. There was one article in this category, which I've moved to the "Actors" category. —LrdChaos 13:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (seven vites to delete, no dissent). —LrdChaos 23:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. —LrdChaos 13:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, concur with LrdChaos. ~ UDScott 14:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. - InvisibleSun 23:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Koweja 03:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 121a0012 04:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Robert 12:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, following Wikipedia's practice of avoiding anachronistic gender divisions of occupations. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 04:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:Animation films [edit]

This empty category duplicates the existing (and well-populated) Category:Animated films. I suspect its creator belatedly found the existing category and just moved the former's articles to the latter. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, concur with Jeffq. ~ UDScott 12:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — LrdChaos 23:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Arts [edit]

This is an empty category, and the text for it says to see Category:Art, which does have articles present, so this category is unnecessary. —LrdChaos 13:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (seven votes to delete, no dissent). —LrdChaos 23:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. —LrdChaos
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 14:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. - InvisibleSun 23:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Koweja 03:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 121a0012 04:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Robert 12:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Art" is one of those odd words that serves as both a countable noun and a mass noun (e.g., "the world or art" vs. "a patron of the arts"). Countable nouns are pluralized for theme titles; mass nouns are singular. I guess this is a case where the first and/or more populated category wins. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Deleted. — Jeffq 20:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category:Britain, Prime Ministers [edit]

  • Bad format. Category:British Prime Ministers is better. I already moved the one entry. Rmhermen 16:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: Deleted (3 Deletes, 1 implicit delete; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 20:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Thanks. I agree, also. Delete. Benn M 16:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jeff Q (talk) 10:54, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Aphaia 21:12, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — MosheZadka 07:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Category:Commercials, Category:Quotes by nationality [edit]

Unused categories. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

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

The result was: delete. — MosheZadka 05:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Category:Films in the People's Republic of China [edit]

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

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

The result was: deleted. — MosheZadka 6 July 2005 08:56 (UTC)

Category:Humanitarians [edit]

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

  • Vote closed: Result: deleted (2 deletes, no dissent). ~ MosheZadka 08:50, 21 July 2005 (added from history by Jeffq)
  • Delete: ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 6 July 2005 08:56 (UTC)
  • Comment: For your information the one under this category is categorized on Wikiquote as below:
Categories: 1914 births | Nobel Peace Prize winners |
Humanitarians | Norwegian-Americans | Biologists | 
Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients | People from Iowa
And I assume "humanitarians" is not "mark for good behaviours" but a sort of activists (but not so political) here ... --Aphaia 6 July 2005 10:10 (UTC)
  • Delete until Wikiquote has enough active sysops and other conscientious editors to ensure that such a category won't be abused. (Check out the Wikipedia category description to consider how easily this may be done in a wiki that can't keep up with its less scrupulous editors.) — Jeff Q (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: move to Category:United States Marines. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Marines [edit]

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

  • Vote closed: Move (simulate) (1 delete, 3 move) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete little used category. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Only one member of category. Category:Military leaders only has 51 members, I do not feel it would be useful to split currently (and splitting along military occupation would not be my first choice at any right: surely splitting along nationalistic boundaries for a nationalistic thing like an army would be better?). ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The Marines Category has only one listing so far, because I have just started. Marine is not a military occupation, it is a Branch of Service, and for a Marine a way of life. Marines as a Subcategoy of the Military have a very different take on things especially in contrast to services such as the Air Force. Marines will produce quite different quotes. Also they are many Marines worth quoting that are not traditionally consider Military Leaders. Sgt Maj Dan Daily, winner of two Medals of Honor has many good quotes. Many of his quotes are as a junior enlisted Marine. I think you will find that for the most part people will only put generals in the category of Military leaders.

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

The result was: Kept. --Aphaia 3 July 2005 14:53 (UTC)


Category:Native Americans [edit]

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

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

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 16:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Natives of Cornwall [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 14:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete especially since this seems destined to raise the issue of "is Cornwall indepedent". ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 18:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jaxl 14:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:People by year [edit]

I've nominated the four (empty) subcategories of this category for deletion; it contains no articles of its own. Until such time as a consistent policy for categorizing people pages in this manner, this category is largely unnecessary. —LrdChaos 13:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (5 deletes, no dissent). -- Robert 14:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. —LrdChaos 13:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 13:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. - InvisibleSun 23:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 121a0012 02:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Though I do think categorizing people by year would be a good idea. Koweja 03:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The people-by-year category structure was created by our esteemed colleague MosheZadka, who has since retired from the field (hopefully not permanently). The idea is good, but we don't seem to have anyone willing to implement it by going through our thousands of people articles and categorizing them. I am generally against creating category structures unless we have the community interest in using them. Do we have anyone who wants to step up to this plate? If so, I would still recommend sticking with births and deaths by decade, as we have implemented with films, until we have an article count that justifies individual years. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Deleted. — Jeffq 20:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category:People from Canada [edit]

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

The result was: Deleted. — Jeffq 20:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category:Prime Ministers of Britain [edit]

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

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

The result was: Deleted.. — Aphaia 6 July 2005 08:04 (UTC)

Category:Words [edit]

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

  • Vote closed: Result: Deleted. (2 deletes, no dissent). --Aphaia 6 July 2005 08:04 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone can provide a compelling argument for how this category might be useful. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Aphaia 4 July 2005 06:45 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: deleted.. — Aphaia 16:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Catz [edit]

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

  • Vote closed: Result: deleted. (2 deletes, no dissent). --Aphaia 16:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: A misspelling of the name of a character from a video game known only for one quote ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 5 July 2005 01:48 (UTC)
  • Delete. If it contained quotes, they would belong in Zero Wing, which follows our current practice of placing character quotes in book/show/film/videogame articles unless and until they have a substantial extant collection of their own. All this is is a copy-n-paste of a history page from the cited website. — Jeff Q (talk) 5 July 2005 03:58 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — MosheZadka 05:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Chaitanya Kamisetty [edit]

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

  • Vote closed: Result: delete (2 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless giving info about notability. Google result[19]. And thank you Moshe again for your listing. --Aphaia 08:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence provided of notability. It's a shame, too; I like the second quote. (I wonder about the originality of the first one, given my recollection of such statements from Juran quality training back in the early '80s.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — MosheZadka 22:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Charles, Prince of Wales [edit]

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

  • Vote closed: Result: delete (2 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 22:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless quotes (not speeches) added to article. If kept, we should remove all the speech links and provide a single "External link" to Wikisource (as well as links back here and from Wikipedia). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 05:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Charlie Murphy [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless quotes are added. ~ UDScott 16:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Concur with UDScott. Come on, folks — this guy was on a famous show! What's the point of creating a quote article unless you can cite some quotes? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Keep. — Jeffq 11:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Charlie Parker [edit]

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

  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: Keep (4 Keeps; no dissent; article improved). — Jeff Q (talk) 11:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've added some wiki structure and the single quotation about Parker from Wikipedia. It's still a fairly minimal article. — Jeff Q (talk) 04:12, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now. I have also expanded it. Rmhermen 13:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now, after Rmhermen's substantial expansion. — Jeff Q (talk) 17:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and I would like to have a rule on withdrawal ;-) --Aphaia 12:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Deleted. — Jeffq 07:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Charon [edit]

Encyclopedic stub. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 8 July 2005 14:01 (UTC)

  • Vote closed. Result: Deleted (3 Deletes, 1 Delete/Redirect; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 8 July 2005 14:01 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to Greek myths. --Aphaia 21:41, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Charon, Minotaur, and Styx are more articles created because someone wanted to fix red WQ links with encyclopedia articles. In these cases, however, they came from "en:" Wikipedia links that now point to WQ. I've fixed these links in their link-source article, Max Payne. — Jeff Q (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Encyclopedic. jni 05:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Deleted. — Aphaia 09:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

CHHS Improv [edit]

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

  • Vote closed: Result: Deleted (2 deletes, no dissent). --Aphaia 09:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless Chapel Hill High School (CHHS) has been written up in something other than in the Chapel Hill News or Herald Sun of Chapel Hill, North Carolina (population 48,000+) for the notability of its Hanes Theater-based CHHS Improv Company. (I've asked about this organization's notability on the Chapel Hill talk page.) — Jeff Q (talk) 28 June 2005 05:04 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: no consensus. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Chiropractic medicine [edit]

Transwikied article from English Wikiquote. It has two problems:

  1. Wrongly transwiki way: though it has a link to the original article, but lack the information of history (so GFDLvio, if we follow it strictly).
  2. ... and imho it is weird as Wikiquote article. Seems to an extract from news or just memorandum to a certain topic. --Aphaia 12:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: no consensus (no explicit votes; 1 implicit Delete). Some may consider this to be sufficient to delete, but I feel that if the community isn't able to muster any explicit votes at all, we cannot consider this a consensus to delete. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — MosheZadka 14:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Chris Elliott [edit]

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

  • Vote closed: Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 14:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless quotes and information are added. There is an actor of this name who might have some interesting quotes, but they need to be added for this page to stay. UDScott 12:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete concur with UDScott. Almost certainly the result of someone filling a redlink from Groundhog Day (movie). I've edited the movie page to link to wp pages for the actors (and also tagged it cleanup). ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless quotes are given. --Aphaia 11:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: deleted. Aphaia 23:30, 29 June 2005 (UTC)

Christopher Chippindale [edit]

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

  • Vote closed: Deleted (3 deletes, no dissent) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aphaia (talk • contribs) 23:30, 29 June 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete MosheZadka 06:38, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've added a link to provide confirmation of this person's existence, for what it's worth. — Jeff Q (talk) 11:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: If someone were to find a half-way verifiable quote and put it there, I would change my vote. But as is, I couldn't find anything via a google search or otherwise. MosheZadka 13:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --RPickman 19:33, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No expectation of any quotes. — Jeff Q (talk) 23:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — LrdChaos 15:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Christopher Oldfield [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (four votes to delete, no dissent). —LrdChaos 15:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Harking to Mr. Oldfield's words, I'm forcing User:Telracs, the creator of this article, "to become more than just [his] words and his intentions", and have posted a {{vanity-warn}} on this talk page to ask either for notability evidence or a wish to move this article to his user page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, concur with InvisibleSun. ~ UDScott 13:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable student, vanity page. —LrdChaos 19:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 121a0012 20:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Delete. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Chuck Izzo [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (3 deletes, incl. 1 implicit; no dissent; no response from article creator). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability is provided (which I don't expect it will, or can, be). —LrdChaos 13:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Concurr with LrdChaos; this is likely a vanity page. I've posted a {{vanity-warn}} to the registered user's talk page to suggest moving the quotes to his user page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


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

The result was: deleted. — Jeffq 07:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Clarence McCoy [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: deleted (4 Deletes; 1 Keep; 1 illegal vote). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 18:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If this is supposed to be a user page, it should be moved to the appropriate location (after which we should still delete the resulting redirect). If used on a user page, the image could stay; otherwise, it should go, too. (Question: Does Commons accept user photos for wiki project user pages?) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it will be moved to user page, same for the pic. (Answer: Yes, and they allow wider choice as for licensing, though they don't accept Fair Use images. The recommended category is Commons:Category:Wikipedians).--Aphaia 21:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This guy has written several internet security manuals and is an established columnist. Peter Norvig (talk) Peter Norvig 21:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: vote struck out by me for being forged by Wikipedophile. For evidence see [20] ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 21:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Def keep. Wikipedophile 21:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: that vote (and forging the above vote) was the user's only contributions). I suspect sock-puppetry. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 21:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Forgery confirmed. I guess the original anon poster who posted from DoD Network Information Center is identical with the registered user who edited this article later, and also identical with Wikipedophile. And even only for his or her offenstive name, Wikipedophile deserves to be banned permentently in my opinion. Also flaud on voting gives a good reason to ban this user indefinitely.
      • Comment: I have blocked Wikipedophile indefinitely per patently offensive username and sockpuppetry, both within blocking policy. The former is particularly offensive coming from a representative of an respected institution whose honorable standards are proudly displayed on the website protected by this "Firewall Administrator". ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
    • As for notability I found two books under a same name, but "quotes" seem not notable or impressive. Notability isn't sufficient reason in my opinion - we don't want to consume every wording of Shakespeare, for example. Only significant ones would be gathered and offered to our readers. And "I vote for someone" doesn't reach this criteria. --Aphaia 07:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I made a relevant proposal on Talk:Abortion - investigation on their sockpuppecy. --Aphaia 07:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Sockpuppet limit has been breached. jni 16:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — MosheZadka 20:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Clinton Moore [edit]

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

  • Vote closed: Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 20:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 16:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete obvious vanity page. Also, block this anonymous user (69.209.175.154) if he attempts again to use Wikiquote to defame private individuals. There's no place for that on any MediaWiki project, let alone a quote database. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. --Aphaia 12:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 15:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Clive Revill [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (4 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless quotes added. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless quotes are added. ~ UDScott 14:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, concur with UDScott and Jeff Q ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 19:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with deletion nomination. jni 08:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Delete. — Jeffq 10:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

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

  • Transwikied to Wikisource. We lack a developed transwiki procedure so I thought requested deletion here was appropriate. Rmhermen 13:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: Delete (2 Deletes, 1 implicit Delete; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: perhaps it could be speedy deletion candidate in future. --Aphaia 22:51, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. jni 07:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Delete. — Jeff Q (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Clothes [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (3 deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. —LrdChaos 20:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a quote about books or about money, but not about clothes. - InvisibleSun 01:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, the Erasmus quote appears to be about Greek literature ("Graecas literas") in its original form. Delete this article unless quotes (preferably sourced) that are fundamentally about clothing are added. (Anyone have a source for "Clothes make the man"?) If it survives, I'd recommend moving it to Clothing. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


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

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 17:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Col. Rob Parker [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless quotes are added. ~ UDScott 12:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Concur with UDScott. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No quotes. jni 18:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: No consensus/keep. — LrdChaos 15:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

College football [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: no consensus/keep (two votes to delete, three votes to keep). —LrdChaos 18:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. —LrdChaos 15:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as page author. One of the quotes is from a US president who is making the analogy that going to the moon is like Rice University playing University of Texas at college football. In both cases, the objective is hard yet people choose to attempt it anyway. (UT almost always wins the football matchups with Rice). The other is by a college football player who talks about his decision to play football being a choice about turning his life around and not ending up "dead or in jail". Both quotes are right on point to the subject matter. Johntex 16:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is already a page for Football. The Vincent Young quote could simply be moved there. As for the Kennedy quote: to say that it is about football merely because it mentions football as a reference is like saying that "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore" is a quote about Hell. - InvisibleSun 01:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment the Football page is a confusing melee of quotes on soccer, college football, pro-football, probably Canadian football also, I'm not sure. all about soccer, not American football, and certainly not about college football.
The specific sentence from the Kenedy quote "Why does Rice play Texas?" Is 100% all about those two universities and their college football rivalry. The fact that he compares going to the moon to a football rivalry is what makes the quote interesting to college football. Johntex 02:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
PS - I've now added 3 additional quotes related to college football. I need to clean up the formatting, since I copied them from Wikipedia, but that is a clean-up problem, not a deletion problem. Clearly there is/will be enough content to fill this article. Johntex 02:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
PPS - added one more. Johntex 04:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have done the restructuring and reformatting that Johntext acknowledged needed to be done. (I'm still a bit concerned about all the explanatory text, but I accomplished my main goal with the basic cleanup.) I think this subject makes a reasonable theme article, although I share LrdChaos and InvisibleSun's concern that a theme article should not be treated as a catch-all place for quotes that are not fundamentally about the subject, but only mention it in passing. (To this end, I have deleted the Kennedy quote, as it is fundamentally about space travel, not college football, overseas flying, or mountain climbing.) To Johntex, whose enthusiasm is appreciated, I would point out that, just as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, Wikiquote is not an indiscriminate collection of quotes. Not every quote that is of interest to fans of a subject necessarily makes a good theme-article quote. If we don't keep theme quotes tightly on target, theme articles would rapidly expand to include anything even tangentially related to their subjects, vastly increasing the repetition of quotes throughout many articles. Please note that the "Search" function will find quotes across all articles, and truly related subjects can be linked to under "See also". ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This could be a huge collection eventually, it's just new is no reason for deletion. I just added about 10 sourced quotes. --MECU 23:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Quote websites are not legitimate sources, as they are not reliable by Wikimedia standards, and rarely provide true source data, like publication titles, articles, dates, etc. They are, in fact, the most efficient modern method of spreading misquotations, as I can personally attest to after quite a bit of source cleanup. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I have changed the referencing format, and changed from a "quote website" to more improved source (mostly About.com). It's still a work in progress. --MECU 01:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


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

The result was: Deleted. — Jeffq 12:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Collis Hardenbergh [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: Deleted (3 Deletes; no dissent; no response from originator). Also deleted "Collis hardenbergh" redirect. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. jni 09:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 08:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Concrete Hippo [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (4 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. How can a statue have quotes?? ~ UDScott 22:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless credible evidence provided that this is not a hoax. I found no "Concrete Hippo EP" at All-Music Guide, and based on the corresponding, unsourced Wikipedia article, it sounds rather fantastic (as in "complete fantasy"). Quotes from a statue don't help the case. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I nominated the WP article for deletion, which may also shed more light on the situation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
      • The WP AfD for "Concrete Hippo" resulted in a delete, with the single line of useful information merged with w:Walsall. During this vote, at least one of the article's editors made 2 attempts to add fictitious references for the looney essay they wrote. I seriously doubt we'll get any real sources for statue "quotes" here. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, the partner of a Wikipedia page which had similar hoax content about the statue itself, and is undergoing AfD. -- Mithent 00:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete patent nonsense. CPMcE 00:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 02:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Conor somerville [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 19:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obvious vanity page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable vanity page without any quotes (three charges for deletion in one sentence, doh...). jni 12:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: keep. — MosheZadka 02:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Constantine [edit]

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

  • Vote closed: Result: keep (3 keep, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 02:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep and next time we have a lull in in new policies, we should consider VfD withdrawal. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 16:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I've expanded the entry, adding quotes, cast, and taglines. It is no longer merely an encyclopedic stub. UDScott 16:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep based on current content. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: keep. — MosheZadka 01:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Consumerism [edit]

No quotes, just personal commentary. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 18:42 (UTC)

  • Vote closed: Result: keep (3 keeps, 1 delete with outdated rationale) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 01:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless turned into theme page ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 18:42 (UTC)
  • Delete unless turned into a useful theme page. — Jeff Q (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep now, after Alan Liefting's substantial additions. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No quotes. jni 05:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have added a bunch of quotes. Alan Liefting 19:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Copy of Wikipedia main page [edit]

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

If no one objects I will delete this after waiting a week. — Kalki 20:51, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
This has been deleted — Kalki 23:34, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Craig Collie [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Deleted (2 deleted, no dissent). --Aphaia 29 June 2005 23:30 (UTC)
  • Comment: I can't guess the context of this quote, but is there any relation to this guy? --Aphaia 21:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Based on the context provided by the article creator ("craig's stoned idea of what we should do"; emphasis mine), this is an obvious vanity page (and probably has nothing to do with Aphaia's cited author(s), Craig Van Collie). — Jeff Q (talk) 23:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability, vanity one-liner. jni June 27, 2005 06:03 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: merge with Crusade (TV series). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Crusade [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: merge with Crusade (TV series) (3 Merges; 1 implicit delete). I have merged the sole quote not already included in the target article, after appropriate reformatting. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Crusade (TV series). Sorry to step on your toes with this, but I replaced the vfd tag with a merge tag. I will restore the vfd tag, since we've started the process, but this seems to be a simple case of the need to merge with an established page. ~ UDScott 17:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Crusade (TV series), agree with UDScott. This just seems like a case of the two of us being too quick on RC patrol--I didn't notice you'd replaced the vfd tag with {{merge}} until after I'd already created this section and left a note for User:Jamillian. —LrdChaos 17:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. Concur with UDScott and LrdChaos. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Deleted.. — Aphaia 9 July 2005 03:50 (UTC)

Current events [edit]

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

  • VOTE CLOSED: Result: Deleted. (2 deletes, no dissent). --Aphaia 9 July 2005 03:50 (UTC)
  • Delete unless there's a compelling reason to protect it from ongoing vandalism, and even then, it should have a more appropriate (restrained) message. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rmhermen 14:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — MosheZadka 14:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Cuzco [edit]

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

  • Vote closed: Result: delete (2 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 14:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This appears to be a nonsense page, with no quotes UDScott 21:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and this seems like a good time to remind everyone we still need to improve our SD criteria ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 21:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 09:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

D. Granosalis [edit]

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

  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: delete (4 Deletes [1 implied]; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless verifiable evidence of notability is provided. The WP AfD is pretty convincing to the contrary. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, concur with Jeff and Uncle G. ~ UDScott 16:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Was deleted from EN WP. jni 08:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Dalai Lama [edit]

Originally titled His Holiness the Dalai Lama Dalai Lama

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

Vote closed. Results:

  • His Holiness the Dalai Lama - deleted. (3 deletes, no disssent).
  • Dalai Lama - turn to redirect to Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama. (2 redirects, 1 delete, no vote to keep). Aphaia 16:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Turn to disambiguation(s) because there were apparently his precedences ... I don't think it is a good idea we have such redirect with title, like "Pope", "British Queen" and so on.--Aphaia 4 July 2005 09:15 (UTC)
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 5 July 2005 06:49 (UTC)
  • Two different fates for two different redirects:
    • Delete "His Holiness the Dalai Lama". It does not following English Wikipedia title practices, as is currently demonstrated by its absence there. — Jeff Q (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Redirect "Dalai Lama" to current Tenzin Gyatso article, whichever that is. (I don't agree with the current suffix, as it seems to violate the WP MoS principle of avoiding honorifics and positions in article titles unless needed for disambiguation, but WP is currently ignoring it for Tenzin Gyatso, so I won't raise a fuss right now.) Unless and until we have quotes from another incarnation of the Dalai Lama, we don't really need "Dalai Lama" to be a disambiguation article. — Jeff Q (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
      • As for Dalai Lama, concur Jeff. Keep it as redirect to Tenzin Gyatso.--Aphaia 19:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Redirected to Doctor Who. — Jeffq 15:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dalek [edit]

  • Delete or redirect to Doctor Who#Enemies. Dalek quotes are already there and this page is very short. --Jawr256 11:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: Redirected to Doctor Who (2 Redirects, 2 Delete/Redirects; merged descriptive text with single quote that already existed at target article). — Jeff Q (talk) 15:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Bolstering my argument about excessive expansion of WQ links, Dalek was created by a user 1 minute after editing Villain, which contained a link to Dalek. — Jeff Q (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to Doctor Who because # can't function in redirect. --Aphaia 06:29, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Interesting, I didn't know that. --Jawr256 12:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect I guess, same reason as with "Doctor Who" above. Sams 20:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Doctor Who. This is another article that is unlikely ever to have more than one quote (and will never be substantial; the Daleks aren't particularly talkative or quoteworthy). — Jeff Q (talk) 10:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. ~ Kalki 19:09, 11 March 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Aubrey [edit]

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

  • Delete or move to user page. --TOR 21:35, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Technical problems with the software prevent deleting this at this time. The developers are aware of the problem. ~ Kalki
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 15:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Daniel dawson [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (6 deletes from regular editors, incl. 1 implicit; 2 keeps from editors who have only engaged in multiple voting and/or vandalism; no response from article creator). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 121a0012 02:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Koweja 03:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete obvious vanity page. I've posted a {{vanity-warn}} in case the article creator wishes to move or copy these quotes to his user page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep this man deserves to be on here because of his bass and drinking talents. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:194.72.50.161 (talk • contribs) 19 July 2006, 8:50 (UTC)
  • Keep Daniel Dawson sounds to be a good man with traditional ideals and religious beliefs (a fervent Opus Dei member as a matter of fact). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:194.72.50.161 (talk • contribs) 19 July 2006, 8:54 (UTC)
  • Keep i like the cut of this mans jib, i would like to meet him, so we can drink and play bass. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:194.72.50.161 (talk • contribs) 19 July 2006, 9:00 (UTC)
Note:The above three "Keep" votes were made by User:194.72.50.161, who was then blocked after vandalizing my userpage six times. - InvisibleSun 09:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 12:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. —LrdChaos 13:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep him, blatantly that is the right thing to do. Who else drinks and plays bass splendidly and is a maths prodigy? I vote KEEP, and becaus ei am so superb and the mother of many oragnizations I count for many others. I count I tell you, keep him! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Emlynisnota (talk • contribs) 10:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 23:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Mawson [edit]

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

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

The result was: delete. — MosheZadka 16:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Darius Peczek [edit]

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

  • VOTE CLOSED: Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 16:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I left a note for Advanet, who created this and Keith Suter, to ask for more information and/or article improvement. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 23:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

David Booth [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes, 1 implicit delete; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. ~ UDScott 11:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable and probably vanity. —LrdChaos 20:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 20:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

David Bradley [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; 1 Keep by user whose only edits are votes to keep this and Steve McKnight; none of the claimed books, newspaper columns, or TV shows (see McKnight VfD) were in any way identified to allow verification). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless evidence of notability is provided. ~ UDScott 14:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Concur with UDScott. This and Steve McKnight appear to be disguised advertising for their real-estate firm. I've removed the commercial link they included in their articles. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Steve McKnight and David Bradley have a real estate education business in Australia. I created both articles. I am NOT associated with their organisation. They are well-known in Australia as a source of rational real estate advice through books and seminars. Andrew8 00:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — LrdChaos 16:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

David Epstein [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (four explicit votes to delete, one implicit vote to delete, no dissent). —LrdChaos 16:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Standard vanity-page profile. I see that the creator removed the boilerplate external links, but has yet to correct the WP link. Of course, there is no corresponding w:David Epstein. I have posted a {{vanity-warn}} to his talk page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, concur with above. ~ UDScott 12:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity page for a non-notable person. —LrdChaos 16:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 121a0012 20:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — MosheZadka 05:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

David F. Embree [edit]

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

  • Vote closed: Result: delete (2 delete, one suggestion to move the quote) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Concur with MosheZadka. Embree has no WP article, either. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Apparently Captain Embree was quoted, along with quite a few other ordinary soldiers, in a PBS production called American Experience: War Letters. [23] That could conceivably make a useful article, if someone wanted to quote from it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Move quote. One quote is probably to little to require a page but could be used on a theme page like Fate or as Jeffq said. Rmhermen 13:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — MosheZadka 05:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

David Frasier [edit]

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

  • Vote closed: Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 03:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Concur with MosheZadka. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seconded MosheZadka. --Aphaia 20:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Deleted. — Jeffq 07:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

David Kline [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: Deleted (3 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 8 July 2005 13:06 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Googling for the single quote got exactly one hit – Wikiquote. jni 05:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Second discussion -- should have been a SPEEDY

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

  • Vote closed: Result delete (2 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence provided of notability. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 13:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

David Kretch [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless evidence of notability is produced. ~ UDScott 13:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Concur with UDScott. Intriguing that the sole current quote is essentially saying "I wish I was quotable"; it almost makes the deletion case by itself. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems to be a relatively common name, but which David Kretch produced this quote and whether the quote or he is notable are both in question. Oswald Glinkmeyer 02:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The anonymous user who created this article also created Patti Cannon and Jeff Rupert (both apparent non-notables), as well as the overlapping Basheer Ahmed and Bashir Ahmed, which, despite the substance in the former, appear to be referring to someone other than the Googleable people with those names. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 12:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

David L. Abbott [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (7 deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless valid quotes are provided and the page cleaned up. ~ UDScott 11:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Robert 16:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The quotes, especially the "his is fun i wonder if people will be angry with me?" one, seem like the sort of thing that a new user and/or with no regard to the purpose of Wikiquote, would put on a page. —LrdChaos 16:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. - InvisibleSun 20:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Koweja 00:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 121a0012 01:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless sourced quotes are added. (I reverted an anonymous editor's removal of the existing quotes so that the questionable nature of the article is apparent.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — LrdChaos 16:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

David radwaner [edit]

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

  • Vote closed.. Result: delete (5 votes to delete, no dissent). —LrdChaos 16:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless evidence of notability is provided. I couldn't find anything on a person of this name. ~ UDScott 11:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No results in a Google search, no Wikipedia page. —LrdChaos 14:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. - InvisibleSun 19:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 121a0012 20:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 23:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

David Shilobod [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 19:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The comedy show doesn't seem notable, nor do any of the people involved. —LrdChaos 18:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 00:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

David Tabriz [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes; no dissent; no further info provided, no request to move to user page). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've posted a note to ask the user if he wants to move this article to be his user page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, certainly seems like vanity. ~ UDScott 11:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I moved this and five other nominations to the bottom of this page and changed their closing dates, effectively extending their ealier nominations, because I'd failed to add the {{vfd}} tag to the articles. My apologies for the confusion. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The page definitely seems like vanity. —LrdChaos 15:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — LrdChaos 20:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

David Vaughan [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (six votes to delete, no dissent). —LrdChaos 20:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. —LrdChaos 18:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided and sourced quotes added. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. - InvisibleSun 01:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 121a0012 02:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Koweja 20:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 13:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: deleted. ~ Kalki

Death by Stereo [edit]

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

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

The result was: delete. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Delo McKown [edit]

No intro, no wp article, google hits point to this and one other quote in various quote collections. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 08:17 (UTC)

  • Vote closed: Result delete (2 deletes, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 08:17 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Delete. — Jeff Q (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Deneme tahtası [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (4 deletes; no dissent; no translation provided). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless a translation is provided. —LrdChaos 17:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Concur with LrdChaos. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. - InvisibleSun 01:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 121a0012 02:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


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

The result was: Keep. — MosheZadka 14:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Denis Leary [edit]

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

  • Vote closed: Result: Keep (3 keep, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 14:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless quotes are added. UDScott 20:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep now that quotes have been added. ~ UDScott 14:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete concur with UDScott. I've removed the template cruft from the page, so lack of quotations will be more obvious. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 21:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep now that there are quotations. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep 206.145.29.246 21:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Strike out anon vote UDScott 13:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep 68.111.190.180 01:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Quotes have been added and there will be more. 206.145.29.246 22:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Moved to std. fmt by me ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep now. --Aphaia 11:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Derek Devenpeck [edit]

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

  • Vote Closes: Result: deleted. (3 deletes, no dissent). --Aphaia 9 July 2005 03:50 (UTC)
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 01:40, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. jni June 27, 2005 06:16 (UTC)
  • Delete unless notability evidence provided. — Jeff Q (talk) 28 June 2005 05:09 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Deleted. --Aphaia 22:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Despair.com [edit]

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

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

The result was: delete. — MosheZadka 14:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Dexter Holland [edit]

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

  • Vote closed: Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 14:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless quotes added. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 14:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless quotes added UDScott 20:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete concur with Moshe & UDScott. --Aphaia 11:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Keep. — Jeffq 04:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dhammapada [edit]

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

  • VOTE CLOSED. Results: Keep (3 Keeps, no dissent). Article name already fixed per original deletion requestor. Redirects fixed. — Jeff Q (talk) 04:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Currently it seems to be a good article (though a bit stubby). See also Talk:Dhammapada. --Aphaia 00:28, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Just tag it with {{stub}} to encourage additions. — Jeff Q (talk) 04:03, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Rmhermen 14:55, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — MosheZadka 05:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Die Hard 4.0 [edit]

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

  • VOTE CLOSED: Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete at least until trailers come out. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 20:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - This is a bit premature. UDScott 20:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: move to Die Hard: With a Vengeance. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Die Hard With a Vengeance [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: move to Die Hard: With a Vengeance (2 Moves; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: where is the page that is allegedly there? Some more information should be given. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 17:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Sorry, this is the first time I've tried to edit, and it actually is a link to Wikipedia. I did notice that I have the title incorrect though. Again, I'm new, so I apologize if I'm doing something the wrong way.~ Flutie 18:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It's ok, it's a wiki. When we notice you doing something wrong, we just fix it :) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 18:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Die Hard: With a Vengeance, which matches both the WP article and the IMDb title listing. Unless the community disagrees for some reason, we should treat this as a simple per-policy article title change when this vote is closed. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Die Hard: With a Vengeance. Concur with Jeff. ~ UDScott 22:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Speedy-deleted, no meaningful content. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Diege [edit]

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

  • Vote closed early. Speedy-deleted for "no meaningful content". ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. —LrdChaos 17:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 18:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Deleted. ~ Kalki 19:09, 11 March 2005 (UTC)

Dillon Chung [edit]

  • Looks like advertising, not quotes from a notable person. Rmhermen 18:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Deleted ~ Kalki
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 16:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Dillon [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (5 Deletes; no dissent; no response from creator). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have added {{vanity-warn}} to the creator's talk page. ~ UDScott 14:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless user registers a username, in which case move to their user page. I'm against offering to move quotes to an IP user page, as they are not owned by the user (or even by their ISP), and therefore should not be treated as a proper user page. We need a {{vanity-warn-anon}} template to add the request that the anon registers first. (I hadn't bothered thus far because I haven't seen an anon vanity-article creator ask for a user page.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. - InvisibleSun 03:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a vanity page for a non-notable person. —LrdChaos 14:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 121a0012 20:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: deleted. — MosheZadka 02:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Dimitris Varos [edit]

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

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

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

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

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

    • Above comment added by User:80.76.61.3 ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 08:11 (UTC)
      • Comment: According to the history, the first keep vote was from the same IP address, 80.76.61.3. --Aphaia 7 July 2005 11:22 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 07:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

DJ Robert Starkey [edit]

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

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

The result was: delete. — MosheZadka 22:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

DJ Scrodanus [edit]

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

  • Vote closed: Result: delete (3 deletes, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 22:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete now he has one google result - Wikiquote VfD. --Aphaia 22:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Freakin Awesome!

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

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 03:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Doctor Nick Riviera [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Deleted. — Jeffq 07:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Dogbert's New Ruling Class [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: Deleted (2 Deletes; no dissent). Merged quote w/ Scott Adams before deleting. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless replaced by actual quotes from DNRC ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 8 July 2005 14:24 (UTC)
  • Delete after moving quote to Scott Adams. The DNRC is a creation of Scott Adams, so supposed quotes from it are actually better placed in his article. The Dilbert Newsletter from which it comes is free as in cost, but still copyrighted, but Adams also explicitly recommends "forward[ing] this Holy Place argument to any Induhviduals", which is hard to interpret through the humor. I would suggest moving the quote unless someone makes a case that it should be deleted completely, but the article should be deleted either way. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 01:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Dom Reeve [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (4 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 12:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable and vanity. —LrdChaos 13:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Concur with UDScott and LrdChaos. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. InvisibleSun 05:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — MosheZadka 03:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Don Roche [edit]

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

  • Vote closed: Result: delete (2 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 03:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence provided of notability. Sounds like a legend in his own mind only. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 16:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Donna Dixon [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (4 Deletes; 1 discounted Keep from anon who also attempted to delete WQ:VFD; no other dissent). Also changed The Simpsons link to WP. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless reasonable quotes added. (The text needs a little cleanup, too, and a Wikipedia link to this actress's article.) I suspect this was created because of a redlink prominently featured in The Simpsons (harking back to my old argument for the use of WP, not WQ, links for many unlikely quotees mentioned only in passing in articles). Unfortunately, even IMDb doesn't list any quotes for her at the moment. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless quotes are added. ~ UDScott 14:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.179.251.163 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC) (UTC)
  • Delete unless some quotes and sources are added. —LrdChaos 14:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 121a0012 20:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Redirect without text. — Jeffq 10:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Dr. Alfred Kinsey [edit]

  • One line written in language I don't even recognise (Hebrew?). Delete unless translated and given some context. jni 17:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote closed. Result: Redirect without text (2 Deletes; 2 Redirects; no translation provided by original editor; redirect essentially accomodates all stated views). — Jeff Q (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, perhaps speedy because we have already Alfred Kinsey. --Aphaia 22:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Rmhermen 03:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect and drop the text unless translated. Looks more like Arabic to me, but that's irrelevant. If it's a quote, the English version should be added to Alfred Kinsey. I've left a note on the original creator's (IP) talk page in case the quote itself is salvageable. — Jeff Q (talk) 03:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Kept. — Jeffq 30 June 2005 00:45 (UTC)

Dr. Frank Crane [edit]

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

  • Vote extended; it closes: 0:00 30 June 2005 (UTC) to make clear the consensus; cleanup or delete. --Aphaia 03:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • VOTE CLOSED after extension. Result: Kept (3 Deletes; 1 official Keep, 1 Keep just past deadline that was solicited by deadline extender; article substantially improved, but still needs work based on several voters' comments; 2 of Delete votes consider cleanup an acceptable alternative). Since I did a good bit of the cleanup (and grabbed copies of the page images specifically to verify the quotes, just in case), I'll finish my suggested work. (I find it amusing to contribute to the preservation of an article whose author savaged me.) — Jeff Q (talk) 30 June 2005 00:45 (UTC)
  • Delete MosheZadka 04:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Better these quotes than the plagarized ones that JohnQ [25] calls his "Personal Quotes"!!! Photolinks on Frank Crane site have been removed, article edited. RocknRollEdder 21:24 8 June 2005 MST (UTC)
    • The human heart is a great green tree, and many strange birds come and sing in its branches; a few build nests, but most are from far lands north and south and never come again. (Frank Crane)
    • The human heart is the throne of God, the council-chamber of the devil.... (Frank Crane)
    • The quality of the author's writing is self-explanatory, the author widely quoted but lacking in volume EXACTLY because his words have not previously published ON-LINE!
  • KEEP Let's get rid of plagiarized quotes [26] and leave bona fide pre-1923 (OPEN-SOURCE!) works for public enjoyment! (UTC)
    • Comment: Vote from anon. "(UTC)" was written by its voter. --Aphaia 17:09, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Struck out illegal (forged or double) vote (see details below). — Jeff Q (talk) 13:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Transwiki to Wikisource; an editor uploaded a photo of its source; if it is not an extract, it would be suitable for Wikisource (unless they consider it unnotable). And I confess I was not impressed by this author. --Aphaia 03:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: As for user's "self-quotes", it is rude to refer it as the above way in my opinion, we encourage Wikiquote editor to create their own quotes collection as long as they make it on their user page; and it might underestimate the author in question to compare with the quotes which is thought clearly infringement of project policies.
  • PLAGARISM You obviously have no ethics against plagarism, Or you would recognize that when someone says, "These are my own original quotes." as JohnQ JohnQ [27] does, he IS taking credit for concepts that would be best cited as "SOURCE UNKNOWN". If someone sues your website, or big government censors your crap, your disregard deserves it.
  • I will find another more profitable venue for the publicity of these classic essays, and you will be left with your pathetic cyberworld virtual past time because you will never be a real-world editor.
    • Above comment was added by 24.117.255.9. I removed the bolding, as it interferes with bold-for-vote formatting. — Jeff Q (talk) 13:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comments: My, my. How to untangle this mess? It's not in my nature to be concise ☺, but let me try.
    1. The rambling text added in fits and starts by RocknRollEdder and 24.117.255.9 (possibly the same person) demonstrates only a minimal grasp of clear thinking, wiki editing, and basic concepts like "public domain" (which they incorrectly referred to as "open source"). We must try to look beyond this "blundering ignorance" (in the good Dr. Crane's words) to consider the value of the article itself. Let's not blame the article for the rudeness of its defender(s).
    2. The book probably is public-domain now, as it was published in 1919. I have reworked the article to remove all the POV editorializing, breathless emphasizing, and duplication. (Edder seems to consider a Wikiquote article as an essay opportunity.) I've left in a cleaner version of the introduction, as it is within Wikiquote practice to have a brief introduction.
    3. The article still needs some serious copyediting, as I made no attempt to compare the quotes to the photographs we have (which I've added links to so that others may do just this.) The "Clean Business" transcriptions are in the form of individual sentences on separate lines, giving no indication of where an excerpt starts and stops. If these passages are indeed entire tracts, they probably should be edited down to their essentials. There also appears to be many unnecessary hyphens in the text, which should only be there if the original spelled the words that way, not just because there was a line break. (That's elementary typography.)
    4. I have not evaluated the content of the quotes or the notability of the author. There is no Frank Crane (or "Dr. Frank Crane") page on Wikipedia at this point, so I can't tell whether it was there and deleted, or never there.
    5. If, after all this, the article survives VfD, it should be moved either to Frank Crane or Four Minute Essays. Neither the current title nor its redirect follow any Wikiquote practice.
    6. RocknRollEdder's "keep" vote, however libelous, is valid, but the second "keep" was added to his later text by 24.117.255.9. That second vote is therefore either an attempt at forgery or a double vote. Either way, it doesn't count. Again, I think this is not malevolent intent; I think it's just ignorance of wiki practices (bordering on disrespect).
    7. And when I say "libelous", I'm being literal. His accusation of plagiarism is not only raving and misattributed (my name is Jeff, not John), but unjustified. Not only do I have records to prove when I first thought of my quotes, I also protect myself (and Wikiquote, although it hardly needs it) by prefacing my personal quotes with the statement: "If anyone knows of earlier sources of any of these quotes that are essentially the same phrasing, please tell me so I can stop calling it mine." I've had no takers thus far. I feel fairly certain that our blustering Frank Crane fan not only will not, but cannot provide such evidence.
    8. Last and least, I want to thank 24.117.255.9 for his unintended compliment of considering my personal quotes good enough to be attributed to "source unknown", which implies pithy but untraceable. My quotes, however, can be traced.
    • Because of the wiki markup complexity of my commentary above, I ask that subsequent comments, if any, be added after this whole block, not interspersed between. Thank you. — Jeff Q (talk) 13:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I, as a temporal admin on English Wikipedia, abused my power a bit --- check if there is a trace of deletion of article on this topic there. I think every admin knows how to find deleted revisions from archive. And there is nothing on English Wikipedia. On the other hand w:WP:VFU says "Pages deleted prior to the database crash on 8 June 2004 are not present in the current archive". So the article in question was ether deleted before 8 June 2004 or never created. --Aphaia 14:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or further heavy cleanup and trimming. Rmhermen 17:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Rather Delete, however don't oppose to keep but cleanup. I propose pending deletion for one week for waiting for editor(s) who will clean it up willingly. If not, it should be deleted. --Aphaia 00:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but moved to Frank Crane: Though I don't find a great deal of intrinsic value in many of the quotes, and suspect the poster might be a descendent or relative of Dr. Crane, they may arguably have some historical value. The page does need further work and clean-up though, and I feel the photos of the pages should be deleted as unneeded by Wikiquote, and probably by any of the other Wikimedia projects. ~ Kalki 30 June 2005 00:22 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 15:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Dream Harvest College [edit]

More probably [commercially motivated] content and pseudoendorsement (although not linked to fronk page this time, as far as I can tell). See Obeng de Lawrence and Wikipedia AfD entries [[28]] [[29]] -- Jamorama 15:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (5 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nominator, as above -- Jamorama 15:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, concur with the above, with similar reasons as my vote on Obeng de Lawrence. ~ UDScott 16:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete! There is nothing more contemptible within wikidom than someone deliberately using Wikipedia and Wikiquote's popularity to generate publicity for personal gain. Mr. de Lawrence shamelessly advertises his own Wikipedia article on this "college" website! He seems to have created this article primarily to expand his project's presence. Note the single quote, also by himself, that isn't included in Obeng de Lawrence (as of this posting). He seems to think that taking 2 quotes (possibly made up on the spot, certainly without citation) and splitting them between the 2 articles will provide both with some air of legitimacy. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Concur with above. jni 08:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Jaxl 01:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — MosheZadka 18:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Duke Nukem vs. South Park [edit]

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

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

The result was: delete. — LrdChaos 14:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Dustin Gawrylow [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (five votes to delete, one undecided vote). —LrdChaos 14:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. —LrdChaos 22:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Undecided for now. It seems quite likely that this is a vanity article, but Gawrylow may actually be notable. His WP article (also created by a User:Dgawrylow whose sole edits are for his article) lists some accomplishments and publications. I suspect a WP notability review would reveal him not to rise above the thousands of political bloggers and activists who don't merit their own articles (especially as a 2005 college grad), but I don't have time at the moment to do enough basic research to feel comfortable nominating his WP article for AfD to initiate such a review. On the other hand, w:Wikipedia:Autobiography's current policy says:
    Avoid writing or editing articles about yourself, since we all find objectivity especially difficult when we ourselves are concerned. Such articles frequently violate neutrality, verifiability, and notability guidelines.
    and
    Creating or editing an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it will likely be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself.
    which may be enough to warrant a fast AfD on WP, regardless of the documentation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. - InvisibleSun 23:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 121a0012 17:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Koweja 17:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 13:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Delete. --Aphaia 18:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Eastern Thought [edit]

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

  • Vote closed: Delete. (3 deletes, no dissent) --Aphaia 18:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Aphaia 00:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This would be more appropriate as a category, not an article. — Jeff Q (talk) 11:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with Jeffq. Sams 21:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 05:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ed Chavez [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (5 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided and quotes sourced. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. jni 12:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. ~ UDScott 12:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, quotes aren't likely to ever get sources. —LrdChaos 15:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete : Personal quotes on the User's page are fine... not in the articles; Wikiquote clearly adheres to the guidelines for Wikipedia on the matter of vanity pages. ~ Harry Tuttle 07:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — MosheZadka 19:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Ed Howdershelt [edit]

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

  • Vote closed: Result: delete (2 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 19:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence that has not shown up on the WP VfD provided. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm inclined to go along with WP on this. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — MosheZadka 19:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Eddie Segoura [edit]

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

  • Vote closed: Result: delete (4 delete, one keep from originator with unclear reasoning, one keep from user determined to disrupt VfDs) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 19:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability is provided. This appears to be a Wikipedia user, and does not appear to be anyone notable. ~ UDScott 01:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete concur with UDScott. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 02:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The WP user doesn't appear to have realized we have the same notability requirements for quote articles that WP does for encyclopedia articles, nor that VFD tags should not be removed before vote closure. I've posted notes about these 2 points to the talk pages of the 2 anon users either are Segoura or favor his article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I gave You folks to drop the page right then and there, clearly pointing out that it's not worth keeping up. But if the page must stay with deletion tags then will not vote delete for My own pages. And yes, the previous anonymous IP was used by Me, though it is shared. -- EddieSegoura 09:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Sysops must follow policy for VFD, just like any user. Once an article has been nominated, it must remain here for at least 2 weeks unless a specific case for speedy deletion is appropriate. We have no SD case for deleting an actual quote article from an unnotable person short of a libel precedent. HOWEVER, we do have a (possibly never used) clause — SD case #7 — that implies that editors (not just sysops) may move main-namespace articles that are appropriate as user pages into the user namespace, then delete the redirect after a few days. (It still refers to "Wikipedia" instead of "Wikiquote" — another indication that we need to put some effort into updating WQ:SD.) I will ask Eddie if this would satisfy him. I'm convinced he just wasn't aware of our "no-vanity article" policy and made a common mistake. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
While I don't agree with such a rule, redirecting or moving (whichever one suits (talk) best) is okay with Me -- EddieSegoura 04:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Absolutely keep it! Although it is lexically, a small quote, it packs the "power of the pill" (not meant to construed in a derogatory manner mind you) 0waldo 18:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The above vote was registered in a block of edits as part of a concerted effort to disrupt the VfD process as part of his "continual commuted confusion" campaign. (See WQ:VFD#Walter Muncaster.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 22:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Eddie's Stories [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes; 1 Keep; 1 implicit keep from user whose only edits involved this article; only notability evidence provided is a discussion board posting, which is not a wiki-reliable source.) ~ "Jefficus" Q (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. —LrdChaos 13:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, concur with above. ~ UDScott 15:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment : I believe Eddie had an account here on WQ and caused a palava creating vanity articles etc. He has now left WP day-to-day. Maybe he's notable cos of that? Gary Kirk 17:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Notability comes from been written about in established print, Internet, or audiovisual media. Wikipedia users with tens of thousands of constructive edits are rarely notable, so a vanity editor is even less likely to achieve this. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Eddie Segoura is notorious if not famous for his escapades in the early 90's. It is rumoured that he invented cyber-sex, but this is disputed by Simon Lissauer who takes full credit. —This unsigned comment is by 193.112.229.153 (talk • contribs) .
      • It's worth mentioning that the above user, 193.112.229.153, also made the following comment regarding the "Get Ahht" VfD: "Even if only say, 300 people know of Get Ahht!, it is far more well known than some obscure, and frankly ridiculous articles such as Eddie's Stories". —LrdChaos 14:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I should have remembered the situation Gary Kirk alluded to. We had an article titled "Eddie Segoura" and voted to delete it on the basis of vanity page with no notability evidence. I'm tempted to speedy delete (based on attempt to re-establish VfD'd material), but the approach and material are substantially different, even though I expect the result will be the same. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I must say, I find it very rude of you, Jefferty, not to respond to the electronic mail message I sent you. I am quite shocked Get ahht was deleted, IMcG is extremely upset. Boo, hiss! Gary Kirk 12:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, you should have remembered that INCIDENT! Arghh! Gary Kirk 13:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: deleted. — MosheZadka 17:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Edward Dowling [edit]

No wp article, no intro, google hits are wikiquote and mirrors, and this [30] pointing to a 19th century australian (the quote implies the speaker is an american). ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)

  • Vote closed: Result: deleted (2 deletes, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 17:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided. — Jeff Q (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 04:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Edward Rae [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless evidence of notability is presented. ~ UDScott 14:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Concur with UDScott. There appears to be a published (though possibly obscure) Edward Rae (The Country of the Moors, 1877), but based on the cited quotes, this article is much more likely about a juvenile, who is certainly unnotable without compelling evidence. There is no corresponding WP article. The creator apparently just used the "add new person" inputbox and filled in a couple of schoolyard quotes, leaving the remainder of the template incomplete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Deleted. — Jeffq 14:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Ekaangi [edit]

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

  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: Deleted (2 Deletes; 1 implicit Neutral; no dissent; no clear idea what this article is about; no response from original editor). I acknowledge that this is a controversial decision. The vote was extended several times (the record of which I've left here), then left rather open-ended, with no one in the community responding firmly one way or another for a considerable time. Because of this, I invite any Wikiquotians who feel this article did not get a fair shake to bring it up on the Village pump. If this happens, we may need to formalize an Undeletion policy. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote extended to 0:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC) awaiting email response from original editor. — Jeff Q (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote extended to 0:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC) by ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 12:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've given it a few more days. Any idea what to do about it? ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 12:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: We have to assume there will be no e-mail from the original editor. Given that, does anyone have a vote? Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 12:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not sure we can still count votes on these continued extensions, since we haven't solidified policy yet. But in general, I maintain that, in the absence of easily determined notability (like IMDb for films), any editor should provide some evidence of notability if they don't want the article deleted. Whatever "Ekaangi" is, is appears to be so unnotable that even the article's author can't be bothered to justify it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: We have two possibilities in my opinion, to say "delete, because no one wants to keep it explicitely" and to say "keep, because no concensus has been made". As for notability I found a link [31]. I suppose IMDb is not perfect to cover non English films. Sometimes I find IMDb has no information about popular (so-called mega hit) Japanese films. I agree on this film has no notability in the English-speaking world, but two websites suggest its potential notability in India. So I would like to ask our Indian editors, if possible, like in the case of Rajinikaant. --Aphaia 16:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Aphaia, your link above points to Ekaangi itself. It can hardly be its own evidence of notability. ☺ We've established in other VFDs that if works that are so unknown in the English world that a modest amount of research that turns up nothing significant, we can reasonably delete them unless someone helps us out. I believe the only real reason we're still having this discussion is that no one else is available to hunt this down, because all our active editors are tied up on other issues. If we don't start forcing one-time editors to justify their unheard-of contributions, Wikiquote will become a collection of vanity pages and obscure articles with no sources. Until we get 20-30 conscientious editors, we can't afford to humor people who slap unsourced stuff into WQ and disappear. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete concured by Jeff. Anyway deletion wouldn't disturb further submission, so seems no harmful. We have been waiting for a good enough time, or not? --Aphaia 14:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Technically, if someone resubmitted the article, it would be subject to speedy deletion per Wikiquote:Speedy deletions, case #5. Personally, I would welcome a new submission if it explained what this thing is supposed to be. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment: We may need to refine our speedy deletion policy. "An artcle under the same title with already deleted article AND with the same content with the deleted one" like that. Personally I would welcome a new submission if expanded fairly and enlighting us what Ekaangi is. ;-) --Aphaia 10:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 18:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Electronic games [edit]

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

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

The result was: Deleted. — Jeffq 06:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Elizabeth Lank [edit]

I changed this from a speedy delete because this person appears to be at least slightly notable, with one claimed publication. Her biography[32], apparently self-written, and the solitary current, rather inane quote, suggests this could be a vanity page. I think we should give the community a chance to review it. — Jeff Q (talk) 03:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: Deleted (2 Deletes; 1 observation w/o vote; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 06:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I listed this as a speedy. I believe that this isn't a quote but an attempt to ask the community here a question that should have gone on the Reference Desk or Village Pump. I could be wrong. Rmhermen 14:24, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I believe it is a question, too. More appropriate to Reference Desk. But I don't deny the possibility her book ( I found it on amazon.com) contains this phrase ... --Aphaia 16:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 19:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Elliott rock [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (4 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 23:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Emily Potter [edit]

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

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

  • Delete. 121a0012 06:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Most likely a vanity page. Koweja 14:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 12:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. While I admire the drive (and am amused at the chutzpah) of this "future bestselling author" [33], I think it's a bit premature to add her to the rolls of notable quotees. I do wish her good fortune in her budding career. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikiquote is not a personal website, and this page is pure vanity. —LrdChaos 14:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: deleted. — MosheZadka 17:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Emily Riebe [edit]

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

  • Vote closes: Result: deleted (3 deletes, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 17:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 15:20 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided. — Jeff Q (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, likely vanity. jni 05:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: deleted. ~ Kalki 21:29, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Britannica [edit]

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

This has been deleted ~ Kalki 21:29, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 16:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Engy Badran [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (5 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless evidence of notability is produced. ~ UDScott 14:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Google returns not one single hit for "Engy Badran". No WP article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. - InvisibleSun 03:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless amble evidence of notability can be furnished. —LrdChaos 14:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 121a0012 20:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: keep. — MosheZadka 12:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Enya [edit]

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

  • Vote closed: Result: keep (3 keep, one misguided delete from a new user after closing date) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 12:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless quotes are added. ~ UDScott 19:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep now that quotes have been added. ~ UDScott 13:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete concur with UDScott. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now that I've turned the article into a substantial quote article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE I'm sorry. Enya is a singer and manufactured quotes from a disco-dance era are not my ideal of notable quotes! Thumbs down to this little ex-hot tamale singer/songwriter! 0waldo 18:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC) I will, admit, secretly that I did have a crush on her because of her wooing musical talents ;)
    • The above vote was registered in a block of edits as part of a concerted effort to disrupt the VfD process as part of his "continual commuted confusion" campaign. (See WQ:VFD#Walter Muncaster.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Eric Fulton [edit]

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

  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: Deleted (3 Deletes; no dissent; author acknowledged error in article creation). Also removed cited Morality quote. — Jeff Q (talk) 05:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'll ask Citrate, the new user, to provide evidence of notability. — Jeff Q (talk) 03:46, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete MosheZadka 07:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Should be on Citrate's user page maybe, not as an article. Sams 09:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I just received a note from Citrate, who is apparently Eric Fulton himself (as I suspected). He simply misunderstood the nature of Wikiquote articles. I've advised him to move his quotes to his own user page. We should have no trouble deleting this article by the close date. — Jeff Q (talk) 01:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 04:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Erich Ludendorff [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (4 Deletes; no dissent; no quotes added). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless valid quotes are added. ~ UDScott 12:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with UDScott. - InvisibleSun 14:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless quotes added. Intro should be trimmed to 1-3 sentences, too, and linked to the WP article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless quotes are added. I'm still not sure why I tagged this for cleanup instead of nominating it for deletion at the time. —LrdChaos 15:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Keep. — MosheZadka 06:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Eugene V. Debs [edit]

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

  • Vote closed: Result: Keep (3 keep, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless quotes added ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 21:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I've added quotes and a WP link to the page. UDScott 21:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now. Thanks, UDScott! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: keep. — MosheZadka 02:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Evans [edit]

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

  • Vote closed: Result: keep (and move to correct name) (4 keep and move, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 02:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep and move to correct name. Thanks for the research! ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 18:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless information provided as to who or what this is and evidence is provided of notability. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep now. A quick check on Amazon.com shows that Bergen Evans has published quite a number of books on the English language. (So many so that I'm embarrassed that I hadn't heard of him!) Thanks to UDScott for fleshing out this article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Oops! I meant move now, as MosheZadka says. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I added some quotes and identified the person -- although it may not necessarily be enough to keep. Others may have some more information, as biographical information on the subject is sketchy at best online. UDScott 13:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to the correct name. --Aphaia 08:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — MosheZadka 06:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Ezra Deutsch-Feldman [edit]

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

  • Vote closed: Result: delete (3 delete, one anon "keep" after close date with pooorly phrased rationale) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Concur with Moshe. No WP article; Google strongly suggests this is a suburban Maryland student who likes movies and participates in the Washington Post's Style Invitational contest. So do I, but I'm not notable, either. (I have to admit that he gets about twice as many Google hits as my name does.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
    • On the other hand, he gets a third as I do -- and I ain't notable either :) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 08:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete UDScott 12:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete No Washington Post article? Plus I like the quote. Is the fact that he's not famous (outside of DC, at least) really a good reason to delete him? I mean, his quote is good, right?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 04:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Face Off [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (4 Deletes; no dissent; no quotes added). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. —LrdChaos 15:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless valid quotes are added. Note: If this page survives, it should be moved to Face/Off, which is the proper title of the film, and matches the WP page. ~ UDScott 15:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Concur with UDScott on both points. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with UDScott. - InvisibleSun 16:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) [edit]

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

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

The result was: Delete. — Jeff Q (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Fan Noli [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (4 deletes; no dissent; no translation provided). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless a translation is provided. —LrdChaos 17:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless a translation is provided. I don't like calling for the deletion of an article about a clearly notable person that actually has a quote, but our audience is English readers, so translations to English are essential. Surely if Noli is notable within the global English-speaking community, he has had someone translate his important quotes? Google suggests the one cited hasn't been so treated, whatever it says. Albanian isn't even close enough to a more common language for me to attempt a rough translation for further research, and it has barely more speakers than the population of the Washington, DC metro area. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. - InvisibleSun 01:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 121a0012 02:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


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

The result was: delete. — MosheZadka 19:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Fast and the Furious 3: Tokyo Drift [edit]

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

  • VOTE CLOSED: Result: delete (2 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 19:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless verifiable source provided, in which case, it needs serious cleanup and probable moving. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete concur with Jeff. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 03:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 19:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Fast Lane [edit]

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

Nuvola apps important.svg   ATTENTION!

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

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

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

The result was: Merged to Health. — Aphaia 00:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Faults of the rich [edit]

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

  • VOTE CLOSED: Result: Merged to Health (2 Merges; no dissent) --Aphaia 00:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Wealth. Rmhermen 02:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, as Rmhermen suggests. — Jeff Q (talk) 08:05, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merged. A question: merge doesn't meen "keep as a redirect", so it should be deleted? Thanks. --Aphaia 01:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Following suggestion on WQ:AN, I keep it as redirect.;-) --Aphaia 12:10, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Move now; delete over time. — Jeffq 19:51, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Favorites [edit]

This is a list of contributors' favorite quotes. RoboAction put a VFD tag on it on 18 Dec 2004, but there doesn't seem to be an entry for it here, so I'm adding it. Some reasons why this article doesn't make sense:

  1. Wikiquote originated as a place to put favorite quotes, so it essentially is "Favorites".
  2. User:Kalki made an excellent point on Talk:Favorites that one can place anything of personal interest, like one's own favorite quotes, on one's User page.
  3. What other reason is there to have this page, if User pages can reflect each person's favorites, and Wikiquote reflects the community's?

— Jeff Q (talk) 06:18, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • VOTE CLOSED. Results: Move now; delete over time (no Keeps; 1 Delete; 2 Deletes after reintegration [1 implicit]; 1 Move out of main namespace). Move to Wikiquote:Favorites scheduled for 21 April or later, barring alternatives (discuss at TF:Proposed move). — Jeff Q (talk) 19:51, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: It will become unscalable. We can encourage visitors to accumulate their own favorites on their user page instead. --Aphaia 05:15, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete carefully. I beleive this page is linked from several prominent places and we may want to check that the quotes on the page on already on there appropriate subject pages. Rmhermen 14:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Links are to Main page, List of categories, and old proposed variations of Main page. I agree that, should we delete, we should first transfer everything into appropriate articles. It'll take some time, but it's doable. — Jeff Q (talk) 06:08, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Google has |exactly one page outside Wiki linking to it. --Eustace Tilley 21:45, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I do feel this shouldn't be in the main article sections. I would vote to archive it somewhere out of the main namespace, to keep a simple record of it, without going to all the trouble that deleting it, and moving much of its content might be. ~ Kalki 19:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — jni 09:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ferengi Rules of Aqusition [edit]

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

  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: Unambiguous delete. jni 09:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: MosheZadka 01:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As MZ said, the title is misspelled. Also, Wikipedia already has Rules of Acquisition, which is much more likely to be accurate than a fan page. A proper Wikiquote article would include a small subset of "favorites" from the list, but should probably not include the entire list. — Jeff Q (talk) 04:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Clarification: In this peculiar circumstance, removing quotes (and verifying remaining ones are accurate) might actually enable this article to pass the "improved enough" test mentioned in WQ:DP#Decision policy. It would still have to be moved to a properly-spelled title. — Jeff Q (talk) 04:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jeff Q said. We have collections or extracts , not the whole text (specially of copyrighted ones) --Aphaia 20:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: deleted. — Jeffq 17:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Fintin O'Brien [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: deleted (4 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 08:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hoax or stupid vanity. jni 09:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Aphaia 14:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Merge with Stephen Covey. — Jeff Q (talk) 11:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

First Things First [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: merge with Stephen Covey (3 merges; no dissent). I've performed the merge. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless valid quotes are added. —LrdChaos 00:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Merge with Stephen Covey, per InvisibleSun. —LrdChaos 13:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge, now that quotes have been added, with Stephen Covey - InvisibleSun 03:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Covey, per Invisible Sun. As I've mentioned before, I'm against book articles except when the book is so famous that it needs a separate article (e.g., The Bible). With book articles, editors have a tendency to assume no further source information need be provided, which requires verifiers to read the entire work to find the quotes cited. (Proper sourcing should include page numbers and ISBNs.) Besides, they needlessly invite copyright infringement by practically begging to be expanded beyond a select set of quotes. Although there are two co-authors cited, their names are so de-emphasized on the cover that I think a note under the heading for this book's quotes in the Covey article would be sufficient. (I do note that the co-authors, A. Roger Merrill and Rebecca Merrill, have (only) one other book credit in the Library of Congress: Life Matters: Creating a Dynamic Balance of Work, Family, Time, and Money (2003). But given that First Things First was published in 1994, they seem to have been extremely junior partners at the time.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


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

The result was: move to Dave Finlay. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Fit Finlay [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: move to Dave Finlay (2 Moves; no dissent). Already accomplished (see comment below). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless valid quotes are added. ~ UDScott 17:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Move, to Dave Finlay; concur with Jeff, now that he has made this a viable page. ~ UDScott 17:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep can get quotes...
    • Struck anon vote. ~ UDScott 17:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to Dave Finlay to match the WP article on this pro wrestler. I've added an appropriate intro and a less-inane set of quotes, both from WP, and added some useful infrastructure to make it a decent stub. I've also begged our anonymous friend to do some minimal work to make his/her apparent nonsense articles more useful to Wikiquote, lest we stop trying so hard to accomodate him/her and just delete the usual junk. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I was busily closing VFDs when I accidentally took action on this article 2 days before the close date by moving it to Dave Finlay. I could move it back, but since it seems this article will be moved there anyway, and the existing title is still active (and will remain so unless we reverse our current course and choose to delete), I beg the community's indulgence to allow me not to move it back only to move it again in 2 days. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Seems reasonable to me Jeff. If there are any dissenting votes over the next couple of days (which I highly doubt), you could then take other action if it becomes necessary. ~ UDScott 16:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 02:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Frank Gehry [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (4 Deletes; no dissent; no quotes added). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless quotes are added to the page. —LrdChaos 13:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless quotes are added. ~ UDScott 14:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Concur with UDScott and LrdChaos. If kept, we should replace the intro w/ one based on w:Frank Gehry.~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Quotes have not yet been provided. InvisibleSun 05:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: deleted.. — Aphaia 20:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Frank Tyger [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: deleted. (2 deletes, no dissent). --Aphaia 20:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence provided of notability. I've nominated its WP article for deletion as well, so that may generate more information with which to judge. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Wow! Wikipedia is getting serious about "unsalvageable" stub articles. They already speedy-deleted w:Frank Tyger. Ours, however, has meaningful content, whether or not it's notable, so we should proceed with this VfD. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: But, of course, proceed with the VfD now knowing there is no wp article :) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 08:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Franz Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria [edit]

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

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

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

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

The result was: Deleted. — Aphaia 00:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Friday [edit]

Apparent vanity page by someone who admits to being inebriated while editing it. Was nominated but not listed for VfD. — Jeff Q (talk) 22:34, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • VOTE CLOSED: Result: Deleted (2 Deletes; no dissent) --Aphaia 00:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jeff Q (talk) 22:34, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rmhermen 02:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Deleted. --Aphaia 00:26, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 23:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

G-unit [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (4 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone cleans this up and adds some real quotes. —LrdChaos 20:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. InvisibleSun 06:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, concur with above. ~ UDScott 19:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Concur with LrdChaos. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 15:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Gareth Cushley [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (6 deletes from regular editors, incl. 1 implicit; 2 keeps from editors w/ minimal contributions who have voted multiple times or vandalized; no notability evidence provided). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 12:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. —LrdChaos 13:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emlynisnota (talk • contribs) 20:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. This vote is the first contribution from this user, made less then five minutes after registering the account. —LrdChaos 20:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep- sheerly deserves a wiki quote dedication. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emlynisnota (talk • contribs) 20:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability provided and some meaningful, sourced quotes added. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 121a0012 03:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Koweja 17:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep- this man sounds worthy of wikiquote status. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Emlynisnota (talk • contribs) 10:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Note: User:Emlynisnota, having voted three times on this nomination and having been warned after the second time, is now blocked from editing for two weeks. - InvisibleSun 11:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.96.88.214 (talk • contribs) 31 July 2006, 09:10 (UTC)
    • Comment: This user has no meaningful contributions; other than this vote, they created the Kevin McCarron page which is up for deletion, and vandalism of UDScott's user page. —LrdChaos 13:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: Please, by all means delete this little experiment, but honeslty, you people have way too much time on your hands. Bound to be English!, Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.96.88.214 (talk • contribs) 1 August 2006, 14:56 (UTC)
        • It's not that we have time to waste: it's being wasted by those who create worthless articles. We are then compelled, as a matter of fairness, to do searches on the subjects and quotes in these articles and to put them to a vote. Speaking of wasted time: do you think you might actually manage to sign your comments, instead of hiding behind anonymity and leaving it to others to supply your signature? - InvisibleSun 15:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Deleted. — Jeffq 11:24, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Gary Wilmott [edit]

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

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

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

  • VOTE CLOSED. Deleted (4 Deletes; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 11:24, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Inane. --Eustace Tilley 22:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jeff Q (talk) 04:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Someone has way too much time on his hands. --RPickman 02:30, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


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

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 16:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Geoffrey Markham [edit]

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

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

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 05:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

George Eastman [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless quotes are added. ~ UDScott 22:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Concur with UDScott. I added WP links (and corrected the company name — it's Eastman Kodak, of course) to help a little. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 00:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

George Fernandez [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: delete (4 Deletes; 1 non-specific move suggestion from creator). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ UDScott 11:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No it's not.. But well, I agree that it is pretty irrelevant to the english quote page it should be moved to one of the "Filipino" or any eastern language page peachmango
  • Delete, as, the page is non-English. —LrdChaos 14:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Based on the attempt to use an irrelevant picture of Tom Cruise from Commons (which I've removed), I'm not sure I believe peachmango's claim. But it's almost certainly a vanity page, as the vast majority of people born in the 1990s haven't achieved notability yet. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • A quick Google search on one of the section titles turns up a LiveJournal entry from 2004 that appears to be the source of much of the page (copied wholesale). Unless User:peachmango here is the same person as "penny_feather" on livejournal, this is probably a copyvio. —LrdChaos 18:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: keep. — LrdChaos 15:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

George Sanders [edit]

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

  • Vote closed. Result: keep (seven votes to keep, no dissent). —LrdChaos 15:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. —LrdChaos 14:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep now that there are quotes, and the page is no longer a copyvio. —LrdChaos 13:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless valid quotes are added, and the superfluous bio information is removed. ~ UDScott 14:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep, now that some quotes are there and the extra information has been stripped. ~ UDScott 12:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 121a0012 01:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Keep. 121a0012 02:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. - InvisibleSun 02:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep because of the changes made. - InvisibleSun 23:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, now that I've replaced the copyvio bio with a stub quote article with some infrastructure and 3 quotes. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep now that it's been fixed up a bit. - Koweja 12:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep now. -- Robert 17:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: deleted. --Aphaia 23:53, 8 June 2005 (UTC)

George Will [edit]

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

  • VOTE CLOSED: Deleted, 4 deletes, no dissent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aphaia (talk • contribs) 23:53, 8 June 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: unless quotes submitted. --Aphaia 14:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP already has an article about him, so no need for a transwiki. jni 15:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No quotes. Sams 20:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless quotes added. Jeff Q (talk) 04:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 09:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Georgie Henley [edit]

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

  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: delete (3 Deletes; 1 Keep not taken seriously because it was registered to disrupt; no other dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Concur with Jeff. ~ UDScott 22:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Aphaia 14:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP. It's notable, we MUST keep this because it is, of a truth: "notable" 0waldo 18:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The above vote was registered in a block of edits as part of a concerted effort to disrupt the VfD process as part of his "continual commuted confusion" campaign. (See WQ:VFD#Walter Muncaster.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 12:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Gerhard Kocher [edit]

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

  • Vote closes: 20 Aug 2005 20:00 (UTC)
  • Vote closes: 27 Aug 2005 20:00 (UTC)
    • VOTE CLOSED. Result: delete (4 Deletes [1 from anon]; 2 Keeps). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This article does have some information, but it's apparently difficult for our primarily English-speaking community to verify easily. Since it seems promising nonetheless, I took some trouble to notify each of the 5 anonymous editors that we'd like some help on verifying this person's notability. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I did find one reference: the book Vorsicht: Medizin (Aphorismen zum Gesundheitswesen und zur Gesundheitspolitik) (English: Caution: Medicine (Aphorisms for Health Services and Public Health Policy) [my rough translation]) by Gerhard Kocher; publisher Ott Verlag (2000), ISBN 3722569303. I have no way of knowing whether this is a very popular or exceedingly obscure book. We again run into the question of how well-known should a person be in the English-speaking world to be considered notable for inclusion on en:Wikiquote. Hopefully our Swiss or German friends can help with more information. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The quotes are interesting, and obviously somebody said them. Put a header on it requesting more information. MScott 10:56 4 August 2005
    • Above vote was added by 67.154.144.146 at 17:54 (UTC). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: The point is the notability of GK is in question. It's not a matter of having said them, it's a matter of being notable enough to be on WQ. ~ MosheZadka