Wikiquote:Votes for deletion

Votes for deletion is the process where the community discusses whether a page should be deleted or not, depending on the consensus of the discussion.

Please read and understand the Wikiquote deletion policy before editing this page.

• Explain your reasoning for every page you list here, even if you think it is obvious.
• Always be sure to sign your entry or vote, or it will not be counted.

The process

Requesting deletions

To list a single article for deletion for the first time, follow this three-step process:

I: Put the deletion tag on the article.

Insert the {{vfd-new}} tag at the top of the page. Please do not mark the edit as minor. Use the edit summary to indicate the nomination; this can be as simple as "VFD". You can check the "Watch this page" box to follow the page in your watchlist. This allows you to notice if the VfD tag is removed by a vandal. Save the page.

II: Create the article's deletion discussion page.

Click the link saying "this article's entry" to open the deletion-debate page. Copy the following: {{subst:vfd-new2| pg=PAGENAME| text=REASONING — ~~~~}}. Replace PAGENAME with the name of the page you're nominating, and REASONING with an explanation of why you think the page should be deleted. Note that the signature/timestamp characters (~~~~) are placed inside the braces {{ }}, not outside as with standard posts. Explanations are important when nominating a page for deletion. While it may be obvious to you why a page should be deleted, not everyone will understand and you should provide a clear but concise explanation. Please remember to sign your comment by putting ~~~~ at the end. Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate. Save the page.

III: Notify users who monitor VfD discussion.

Copy the tag below, and then click  THIS LINK  to open the deletion log page. At the bottom of the log page, insert: {{subst:vfd-new3 | pg=PAGENAME}} replacing PAGENAME appropriately. Please include the name of the nominated page in the edit summary. Save the page. Your insertion will be automatically expanded to the same form as the preceding lines in the file: {{Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/PAGENAME}}. Consider also adding {{subst:VFDNote|PAGENAME}} ~~~~ to the talk page of the article's principal contributor(s).

Voting on deletions

Once listed, the entire Wikiquote community is invited to vote on whether to keep or delete each page, or take some other action on it. Many candidate articles will have specific dates by which to vote; if none is given, you can assume at least seven days after the article is listed before the votes are tallied.

To vote, jump or scroll down to the entry you wish to vote on, click its "edit" link, and add your vote to the end of the list, like one of these:

• Keep. ~~~~
• Delete. ~~~~
• (other actions; explain) ~~~~
• Comment (not including action) ~~~~

Possible other actions include Merge, Rename, Redirect, Move to (sister project). Please be clear and concise when describing your action.

The four tildes (~~~~) will automatically add your user ID and a timestamp to your vote. This is necessary to ensure each Wikiquotian gets only a single vote. You can add some comments to your vote (before the tildes) to explain your reasons, but it is not required. However, it may help others to decide which way to vote.

Please do not add a vote after the closing date and time; any late vote may be struck out and ignored by the closing admin.

NOTE: Although we use the term "vote", VfD is not specifically a democratic process, as we have no way of verifying "one person, one vote". It is designed to "take the temperature" of the community on a subject. Sysops have the responsibility of judging the results based on a variety of factors, including (besides the votes) policies, practices, precedents, arguments, compromises between conflicting positions, and seriousness of the participants.

Closing votes and deleting articles

Sysops have the responsibility to review the list and determine what articles have achieved a consensus, whether it is for deletion, preservation, or some other action. All candidate articles should be listed here at least seven days before the votes are tallied. Many VfD entries will have "Vote closes" notices to indicate when the votes will be tallied.

• The sysop tallying the vote should add a "vote closed" header with the result of the vote, and sign it.
• If consensus is for deletion, the sysop should follow the deletion process to delete the article.
• If it is to keep, or if there is no consensus for action, the sysop should remove the {{vfd-new}} tag from the article and post a notice on the article's talk page about the completed VfD, including a link to the VfD discussion on that article. The {{vfd-kept-new}} template can be used for a standard notice.
• There may also be a vote to move (rename) or otherwise change the article. The sysop's actions will depend on the specific situation in these cases. In those cases, a notice should also be posted on the talk page documenting the decision.

To avoid conflict of interest, a sysop should never close a VfD that he or she started. However, a sysop may close a VfD in which he or she has voted.

After a reasonable time, a sysop will then move the entire entry into the appropriate month page of the VfD log. (During this transition period, some old discussions are available only in the old Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive.)

Note: In the interest of cross-wiki cooperation, please check Wikipedia to make sure their articles don't link back to an article that has just been deleted. Also de-link any other language edition articles (though if you find that daunting, EVula is more than happy to do so).

Reviewing closed votes

All closed votes will be archived indefinitely in per-month pages at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Log. (A few are still found only in the old Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive.) See that page for details.

Deletion candidates

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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[1], redirected, and renamed as The Journals of Søren Kierkegaard. ~ Ningauble 16:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Journals and Papers

This is only about the journals and papers of Kierkegaard. There is only one quote, which is already on the Kierkegaard page. It could be extended to be about journals and papers in general, but thatdoesn't seem to be a very sensible topic. — Collingwood 08:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Vote closes: 09:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as nom.--Collingwood 08:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom - and ensure that the Kierkegaard quote is on his page. ~ UDScott 14:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• Merge information and delete per nom. BD2412 T 21:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• Scholars tell us that there are 7000 pages to Kierkegaard's Journal's and papers. I just thought there might be room on Wikiquote's site for the page. Keep and expand upon.--11614soup 22:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Or just rename the page Journals and Papers of Soren Kierkegaard--11614soup 22:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Kierkegaard was a great philosopher, but how many short, snappy quotes can we find in his work?--Collingwood 21:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • He doesn't write short snappy quotes, so how can he be appreciated on Wikipedia unless long quotes are allowed. --11614soup 02:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

    (This is Wikiquote.) ~ Ningauble 18:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

  • We could put all his work on Wikisource; I'd be willing to help.--Collingwood 18:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Do you mean move it all from Wikiquotes to Wikisource? --11614soup 00:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
    • No. Leave our Kierkegaard page as it is, delete the Journals and Papers page, and put all 7000 pages uncut on Wikisource.--Collingwood 21:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• Merge to Søren Kierkegaard#The Journals of Søren Kierkegaard. It may be appropriate to fork a separate article from the author page at a later time, should there come to be too much material to accommodate there. As it stands, we don't need a separate article for just a couple quotes. ~ Ningauble 18:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• Merge as suggested above, and have "The Journals of Søren Kierkegaard" redirect to that section. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 23:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC) + tweak
• Merge, per above; the page name is the issue, not the content. Achowat 16:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• Is the voting closed? Should I rename the page? --11614soup 14:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Voting is over, but it is pretty clear that the overwhelming majority supports removal, not renaming; the only split is whether to remove by deletion or remove by merging. Since the effect is the same, this title should definitely be deleted and the redirect made from "The Journals of Søren Kierkegaard" as advised. BD2412 T 19:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was: re-merge. BD2412 T 21:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Metal Gear

No Quotes, just an intro, link to the page Last words in Metal Gear series games and a few sites.—This unsigned comment is by Deezy.D. (talk • contribs) 17:44, 25 January 2012‎.

• Vote closes: 18:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete—This unsigned comment is by Deezy.D. (talk • contribs) 17:44, 25 January 2012‎.
  • Re-Merge Deezy D—This undated comment was posted 14:36, 26 January 2012
• Re-Merge, undoing reversal by Deezy.D. of the previous merge. The Metal Gear articles were merged together more than three years ago, as noted at Talk:Metal Gear#Attribution. It is a bad idea to break out separate articles again, because following the Wikiquote:Limits on quotations means each article would be a stub. Merging them into a single article is the best way to organize good quality coverage of a video game franchise. ~ Ningauble 18:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• Re-merge, per Ningauble. ~ UDScott 18:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• Re-merge; seems the easiest solution.--Collingwood 21:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• Re-merge. The reasons for which these pages were merged in the first place, primarily copyvio concerns, ease of maintenance, and avoiding duplication and a plethora of unoriginal and non-quotable quotes, remain entirely valid. BD2412 T 12:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Josette Sheeran

Speedy deleted as single-source spam, which was contested. Restored for proper deletion discussion. My inclination is that the subject is merely an agency functionary, and is therefore not quotably notable. — BD2412 T 18:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Vote closes: 19:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. BD2412 T 18:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I will expand my comment just a bit by noting that all but one of the quotes on this page are sourced to the website of the program for which this person works. BD2412 T 18:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Spam added by single-purpose-account with obvious conflict of interest. -- Cirt (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep — and I believe that an Executive Director of the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) and a future co-chair of the World Economic Forum is quite notable enough for an article here, as well as the one she has at Wikipedia. Any paucity in the material can gradually be alleviated, and considering the existing quotes of official addresses or announcements of a major UN functionary merely "spam" is something I consider not merely ludicrous but contemptible. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 18:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The problem is that the whole entire page was created by a likely representative of the organization in order to spam links back to the organization's website, and 100% of those spam links appear to still remain on the page. -- Cirt (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
    • The fact that a person is notable for Wikipedia purposes doesn't make automatically make them quotably notable. Someone may hold a very important position, but not be known for their quotes. In this case, a quick Google Books search indicates that the subject is at least mentioned in a number of books, although this does not inherently mean that she is quotable either. I did find one instance where this subject was quoted in a quotability context:
      • A silent tsunami which knows no borders is sweeping the world.
        • Regarding world hunger; reported in Graeme Taylor, Evolution's Edge: The Coming Collapse and Transformation of Our World (2008), p. 46.
    • Fill up the page with quotes from sources other than the subject's own agency webpages and I'll consider changing my vote. BD2412 T 21:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep The author is notable and the quotes non-trivial. Further, they are all referenced to a respectable web site. The idea that linking to the web site of a United Nations agency is spam seems not to be a valid meaning of "spam".--Collingwood 21:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I have added the quote found by BD2412 and one from a UK Government web site, obviously independent of the UN.--Collingwood 22:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep following the addition of a number of sourced quotes. ~ UDScott 00:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Update: Removed spam links to organization www.wfp.org diff. The page now has four (4) sources other than in its initial format, which was almost 100% spam links to that organization. I also removed some spam links from the External links subsection, which was becoming bloated. There was even a link to "Twitter". -- Cirt (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • For the record, I support the removal of these materials, and would have gotten around to doing the same thing in fairly short order. We should not open ourselves up to becoming a repository of materials that any organization wants to showcase. Quotes sourced only to the internal webpages of an organization should not be included here. Furthermore, we should definitely not be linking to Twitter accounts. They can provide no useful information about what quotable things the subject has said, because they only reflect the subject's own comments, not the evaluation of these comments by disinterested third parties. BD2412 T 19:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • For the record, as most are well aware, I reject the deletion of material merely because it is not widely quoted elsewhere and not necessarily found in secondary sources, and if material is deleted that doesn't violate some clearly established rules it should be a matter of consensus operations. I believe that there are MANY quotes by MANY people taken out of context, and widely quoted which additional material permits placing into better context, and many notable statements of notable people which editors should not be required to find in some secondary sources, if one finds them significant. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 19:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC) + tweaks
    • @BD2412: Check it out, Kalki has gone ahead and reverted, adding back all the spam links, diff. -- Cirt (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Check it out — Cirt is trying to instigate hostility to me here (surprise surprise!) I restored the material because other editors HAD expressed approval of it — and had NOT yet seen BD2412's agreement with Cirt on this particular matter. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 20:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Update: I've removed the spam links a 2nd time diff, however I will not do this again. -- Cirt (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Hopefully Kalki will respect that two (2) users find the spam links inappropriate, and will not revert the spam links back unto the page, again. -- Cirt (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Hopefully people who are not asinine conniving CENSORS of evidence of GRACE and WORTH in HUMANITY will be of sufficient number that a genuine consensus can be reached to RETAIN this valuable and appropriate body of material from a TRULY responsible leader of human beings. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 20:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Kalki, Wikiquote is not intended to be an arbiter of what is good and wholesome in the world. We are a compendium of quotes, that's all. We report notable, quotable comments, and perhaps debunk misattributions where they are found, but we are not on a mission to showcase stuff that was said that no one else has deemed notable enough to be quoted. BD2412 T 20:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
        • I would like to point out that though at least a couple long term editors promote such views such restrictions as you present AS IF they were official POLICY have NEVER received consensus community approval, and I for one would vigorously oppose establishment of such guidelines as mandates. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 22:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC) + tweaks
• Comment I support the retention of these quotes until we have had a full discussion about whether a UN website is a proper source for quotations. I cannot fathom how links to a UN web site can constitute spam. Is it because it is a self-published source? Do people know that all of Lewis Carroll's major works were self-published? If Wikiquote had existed in his lifetime, would we say that we could not source a quote to his books because they were self-published?--Collingwood 21:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

1. It's a primary source.
2. The quotes were all added by a single-purpose-account.
3. The page was created with 100% links back to the parent organization.
4. Thus, the page served to add tons of spam links to promote the organization's website.
5. That is inappropriate use of this project.

-- Cirt (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Certainly it's a primary source. So is a novel, a play, a collection of poems by one author or a non-fiction book. Do you propose removing most of the quotes from articles such as William Shakespeare? I believe that linking to the web site of a UN organisation is not spam, and see no consensus here to the contrary. Can we please wait until this VfD is concluded and then have a discussion elsewhere on the general issue. Incidentally, I see that Ningauble says "The principal citation should be the primary source whenever it can be found ... When quotability is debatable, a supplementary citation to a notable secondary or tertiary source may be included as evidence." Is there any issue here of quotability?--Collingwood 21:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • How do we know whether something is "quotable" if no one else has quoted it? I suspect we would have little difficulty finding any of our Shakespeare quotes having been repeated by another person. Let me propose the contrasting situation. A person of borderline notability has a blog or a twitter feed, and creates their own page here containing random sentences from these types of sources. Are we bound to keep that because the primary source has been cited? BD2412 T 22:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Strongly agree with this comment by BD2412. -- Cirt (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment: Yes, no doubt most of the Shakespeare quotes have been quoted by someone. But it would take a lot of work to prove that in some cases. Anyway, do we want a policy that quotes can only be added if there is proof that they have been cited by an independent reliable source? Would we require that the independent source gives a precise reference, hence excluding Brainyquote and similar sites? I think that such a policy would wreck this site.--Collingwood 12:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
      • I would like to point out some rather ridiculous absurdities to these comments, as a person who ACCEPTS and REJOICES in MANY forms of BEAUTIFUL and FAIR and genuinely REVELATORY absurdities — and rejects many forms of foul or misleading absurdities: ANY thing is to some extent "QUOTABLE" — MANY things NOT considered quotes by MANY people are considered quotes by SOME — especially the most intelligent and profound of the poets and philosophers who address the disciplines of Semiotics and Pragmatism, and NO quotations is considered PERFECT — there is NEVER ABSOLUTE IDENTITY between ANY 2 instants of time or Regions of Eternity or other designatible continuums of Reality. ALL people CONSTANTLY engage in various forms of interpretation and assessment which can be considered fair and agreeable to many — or obtuse and dull — or clever but mischevioius or even malicious. I have regularly objected to attempts by people to constrain and limit what editors can do here based on extremely presumptive definitions and what I consider to be very shallow perceptions of MANY circumstances. I do NOT feel ANY of us should EVER bound to accept ANY things absolutely without good REASON, and the willingness to face contentions and disputes on occassions. THOSE who seek to establish "perfect definitions" and "perfect formulations" and "perfect RULES" are people I have LONG considered SEVERELY deluded — but I recognize the mania for seeking such things are very common. The MOST I believe we can ever actually ACHIEVE by efforts are FAIR and HONEST and CONSIDERATE ASSESSMENTS. ~ This is just a glimpse of some of my perspectives on things, so that some people might beging to actually UNDERSTAND some of my rhetoric and rationales a bit better. BLESSINGS TO ALL. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 01:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

I would like to point out that not so long ago I actually put aside any personal animosities and supported the RETENTION of the page Cirt created on Ma Anand Sheela at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Ma Anand Sheela, despite what I consider his or her obvious hostilities to the subject of the article, which was apparent on what he or she chose to present to others. As I have regularly stressed I do believe people SHOULD have very wide freedoms to choose material for pages — and others have the right to dispute the appropriateness or fairness of anything, and to attempt to correct any unfair imbalances with other material — but ALL attempts to put absolute formula or rules on what people can or cannot add to legitimately worthy subject pages is something I tend to abhor. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 02:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC) + tweaks

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

The result was: Deleted both categories after emptying them.--Jusjih 14:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC).

Animation films by studio categories

This nomination includes the following two categories:

• Category:Disney animated films
• Category:DreamWorks Animation films

These subcategories are species of Category:Films by studio, which has been deprecated at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Category:Films by studio. See multiple discussions linked in that vote for rationales. — Ningauble 18:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Vote closes: 19:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. ~ Ningauble 18:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, per earlier discussion on films by studio. ~ UDScott 00:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, serves no purpose in the categorization of quotes. BD2412 T 17:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per above comments. Maybe while Walt Disney was alive he could be regarded as having a significant input into all his films hence be a part author but that is of course no longer the case.--Collingwood 15:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Category:Midquel films

This category, based on a neologism for a species of sequel, does not have any utility for characterizing or organizing quotations. There may or may not be some value in using Category:Sequel films to flag derivative works or follow-on products; but I see no value in subcategorizing quotes from works according to sequential narrative order. — Ningauble 18:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Vote closes: 19:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. Identifying related works in the introduction is a good thing. This categorization is superfluous. ~ Ningauble 18:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott 00:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, no one is going to be burning to find quotes from all the works that happen to be "midquels". BD2412 T 17:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Not a helpful concept, and not a widely used word that I can see.--Collingwood 15:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, though agree with Ningauble (talk · contributions) regarding utility of sequel films category. -- Cirt (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Secret life of a mermaid

This article was {{prod}} because "Non-notable YouTube project." The tag was removed without comment, which brings it here. — Ningauble 15:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Vote closes: 16:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. Caution: children at play. ~ Ningauble 15:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. BD2412 T 17:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott 17:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete It is preposterous to have articles on Youtube videos unless they are quoted by serious external sources!--Collingwood 15:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

  Aside: I remarked about quoting user-generated content sites a while back at Wikiquote talk:Quotability#Tweets, blogs, chatrooms, &c., but there were objections to requiring quotation in secondary sources, or even giving it greater weight when balancing other factors of quotability. ~ Ningauble 17:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete, doesn't yet appear to have any form of significant notability. -- Cirt (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Josh Homme

This article was {{prod}} because "No sourced quotes." The tag was removed and generic links to unreliable quotations pages were added, but the defect still remains. — Ningauble 16:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Vote closes: 17:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as nom, without prejudice to creation of an article on this notable person with actual, reliably sourced quotes. ~ Ningauble 16:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep due to creation of an article on this notable person with actual, reliably sourced quotes. (Unsourced sections still need to be removed.) ~ Ningauble 16:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I've sourced all that I can find and moved the rest to the talk page; it seems that many of the quotes were from Josh Homme's own Tumblr account, but I am not comfortable with having such questionable and unfiltered materials here. On that note, keep. Cheers! BD2412 T 04:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• I agree that this is a notable subject. I'll look for cited quotes. BD2412 T 17:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete in its current form, per nom. ~ UDScott 17:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep, following BD2412's improvements. ~ UDScott 18:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I'll wait for BD2412 and may also look myself.--Collingwood 15:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I have sourced a few and added a few. BD2412 T 17:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • In that case, Keep.--Collingwood 19:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep, excellent job at improvements. -- Cirt (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Iranica

A collection of ordinary endorsements that lack quotability, of the sort that are used on the back covers of books. These are all copied from a promotional page on the project's website. — Ningauble 17:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Vote closes: 18:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. In what way does this differ from an advertisement? ~ Ningauble 17:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Pure fluff, useless to a serious compilation of quotations. BD2412 T 17:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott 20:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Seems to be a notable work, and there might well be some good quotes in it, but there are none in the article.--Collingwood 22:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment In fact, the work is available online. I have skimmed a few articles and cannot find any particularly good quotes.--Collingwood 23:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete The work itself appears to be notable, but the page in its current state should be deleted per nom. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 16:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, without prejudice if improved with secondary independent reliable sources. -- Cirt (talk) 01:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Cruyff

This article was {{prod}} because "No sourced quotes." The tag was removed and links to an unsourced collection in a blog were added, but the defect still remains. — Ningauble 17:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Vote closes: 18:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as nom, without prejudice to creation of an article on this notable footballer with actual, sourced quotes. ~ Ningauble 17:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep due to creation of an article on this notable footballer with actual, sourced quotes. At least one of the sourced quotes has actual quotability. The unsourced section and blog links will need to be removed. ~ Ningauble 15:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, unless quotes properly sourced to reliable third party publications are provided. BD2412 T 17:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom and above comments. ~ UDScott 20:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep I have added some quotes. The article should be moved to "Johan Cruyff".--Collingwood 22:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep — the page still needs work, but the sourced quotes seem sufficient for a base upon which further editors can expand — with any currenly unsourced quotes moved to the talk page. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 01:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep The page has been improved and sourced quotes have been added. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 16:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep, good improvements, agree that page should be moved. -- Cirt (talk) 01:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Glenn Shepard

Non-notable person; claims to have WP article but does not. Looks like an advertisement. — Collingwood 13:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Vote closes: 14:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as nom.--Collingwood 13:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Appears to be a non-notable self-promoter. BD2412 T 14:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott 15:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per BD2412. As self-promotion goes, saying "as quoted in" one's own book is a rather disingenuous way to give the impression of receiving notice in secondary sources. The trick is no more original than the quotes. ~ Ningauble 15:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, essentially agree with assessment by Ningauble (talk · contributions), above. -- Cirt (talk) 01:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

A Rebel Life: Murder by the Rich

Little indication of notability. A Wikipedia article on this book cites no secondary sources, and links to a single book review in a webzine that features offbeat "transgressive fiction". According to OpenLibrary,[2] the publisher was a one-shot with no other titles. The book is also self-published through CreateSpace.

Note: The original contributor, a single-purpose account here and at Wikipedia who self-identifies at Commons as the copyright holder,[3] recently blanked all quotes from the page,[4] but was reverted. — Ningauble 15:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Vote closes: 16:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. ~ Ningauble 15:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom - interesting, but nevertheless not up to notability standards. ~ UDScott 16:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep — though this material is nothing I have great interest in either keeping or removing of itself, and badly in need of a format cleanup, I generally prefer to preserve and expand information avaliable to people, and to not remove it without clear NEED to do so. I would MUCH rather reduce MANY of the crap rules and definitons and numerous assumptions that have accumulated here to stifle activity, which are increasingly evident and are quoted as if they were MANNA from heaven, than MOST of of the CRAP articles where people have genuinely attempted to participate. Even if what they have developed has little merit, and generates little interest from most of us, I believe they have far more merit than many of the rules that some people find convenient to use to exclude MUCH, and which I find extremely detrimental and thoroughly deplorable. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 16:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC) + tweaks
• Keep I agree that this is not very good stuff, but it does seem to be notable, e.g. [5]--Collingwood 21:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, without prejudice if page were to be improved with secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)